User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BD2412 (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 9 January 2023 (archive some). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:36, 9 January 2023 by BD2412 (talk | contribs) (archive some)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk protected

Hi HW, just a quick note letting you know I've semi'd your talk page for two days -- samtar 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Same again (two days) -- Samtar 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

anna faris

Whats with the attitude? seems like an ongoing thing with you and deleting valid updates to pages just going through your talk page.

I updated Anna Faris with a story, i was told that it didnt contain a reference but to upload again with something from a proper source so i uploaded again with a Ref from a National Newspaper. Your use of caps and telling me not to undo the deletion is taking it a bit far considering others told me how to upload the edit properly with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:95ED:E596:C4AF:5036 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop dissembling and feigning wounded indignation. You cut-and-pasted copyrighted content from a self-published blog, b\violating copyright policy and WP:BLP. Nobody told you that was permissible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you going round in circles citing a different reason for the removal each time. Not very professional. Every time i sort what the issue is you cite a completely unrelated reason. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:349A:5353:E272:4254 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

National film Registry

Why do you keep deleting images from the National Film Registry page? Some of these images are in the public domain, and all of them are featured in other Misplaced Pages pages having been previously uploaded and licensed. I have worked very hard to create that section of the page and your deletion of so much is hurtful to me.

I have also not been warned several times over the past few weeks. DeaditeWheatley (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As I posted to your talk page, those images were grossly noncompliant with WP:NFC and related policies. The fact that a nonfree image may be used on one page in no way indicates it may be used on any other. You should also read WP:NFCCE carefully, which sets out the policy governing these image removals: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Amy Ried page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement has been lodged

A request for enforcement has been lodged against you at WP:AE Holanthony (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Pete Davidson

Thanks for this You're doing God's work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

Not sure if I did this right, but you may want to see Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/TTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Governor Frank O'Bannon

I saw you have undid my edit on the Indiana gubernatorial election, 2000. All I did was add a picture of Democratic nominee and eventual winner Frank O'Bannon. Given that he had a picture on his page, I took the liberty of taking it and adding it to the election page. Would you please explain why this is problematic? I would really appreciate it. Count Awesome (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a non-free image. Nonfree images can only be used, per WP:NFCC#8, when "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Here, understanding that O'Bannon was the candidate can be conveyed perfectly by text alone. Also, under NFCC policy, the fact that an image is used in one article does not mean that it may be used in other articles; every time you add an nonfree image to an article, you must provide a valid article-specific use rationale that independently justifies its use in that particular article. The existing use of the image in question was justified under image use standards which allow the use of a nonfree image of a deceased person only in their biography. See WP:NFCI#10. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Balbir9005/Mary queen

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Balbir9005/Mary queen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject is a porn star, and it's not disparaging. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shock sites

Think you could discuss your reasoning on the talk page? The inclusion criteria on this page has been a topic of many discussions over the years, and your presumption that an entry in a list is automatically non-notable, regardless of sourcing, if it does not have an article of its own, is an arbitrary and exclusionary practice. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ashlynkapriella

Could you edit my wiki page? Ashlynkapriella (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use book cover in author bio

Hi. Regarding your deletion of a fair use non-free book cover image: where the copyright holder wishes to give permission for image of book cover to be used, how should he proceed to indicate this, and which template do I use? Thanks Mramoeba (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image rationale

I explained in the revert of Arlie Neaville that this a non-free image but is allowed to be used as it fits ALL criteria listed under Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria, not just #2. Your rationale for the second removal was "Unquestionable violation NFCC2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is necessary but, on its own, grossly insufficient!" - I don't see an "unquestionable violation", your first removal was reverted in good faith and I explained my rationale, but I don't see your argument for removal, especially for a second time. I would appreciate if you would self-revert this edit. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, not a word in your argument or on the file page making a case as to why we would be unable to obtain a free image of a living person who is identified as a currently (or at least recently) active performer. That's pretty much an open-and-shut-case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"? I could not locate a free image of this person, but if you can by all means please replace it and tag with this template. Otherwise, I disagree this is an "open and shut" case, and I implore you to take this up at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion, per the guide to image deletion ("For images claimed under fair use...which do not meet the above but may not meet non-free content criteria for other reasons, list at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion according to instructions there), as this removal has been challenged. Please do not remove it until others have commented on the matter. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Nonfree images in living people are subject to a virtually conclusive presumption of replaceability under WP:NFC#UUI#1 and the WMF licensing policy. No prior discussion for removing such an image is required, and such images should not be restored without consensus that NFC requirements are satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You do know what edit warring is, right? Reverting you twice, with messages on your talk page explaining my actions, does not qualify as 3RR. Don't template me with "edit warring" unless you do a little reading up on the matter. Garchy (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't post crap on my talk page. Edit warring does not require a 3RR violation. Stop wasting my time arguing about NFC issues you plainly do not understand, in defiance of specific wording in the relevant policy pages! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. You ever think of playing nice, or genuinely assuming good faith in people? You seem to hold a lot of hostility, but that's nothing I can help you with. Have a good day! Garchy (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Basil Rigg

Hi there. Your initial deletion had the edit summary of "nonfree image in BLP infobox". Is it's positioning in an infobox the specific issue, or are you against non-free images in BLP articles as a whole, even with a NF rationale? I couldn't find any mention of infobox restrictions on any policy or talk pages, so I reverted. After your non-specific "against policy" re-revert, I again read the page and believe that a photograph of a sportsman during his notable era clearly fits in the first exemption in WP:NFC#UUI, more than if a free photo could be obtained of a 90 year old man. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Both. This issue has been argued to death over performer images, and there's no exception to NFC requirements for performers in their prime. The exception you claim is limited to people who are notable primarily due to their physical appearance, and that's obviously not the case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

URAA sucks. It's a public domain image. Enjoy Textopedia. The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover fair use?

You recently removed this image from this article . Under the fair use guidelines it seems this album cover would be acceptable to use on Misplaced Pages? This is not accurate; is it; since the image is used in an article? "This file is unlicensed for use on Misplaced Pages and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles" I am no expert on this area so thought I'd check with you. An editor emailed me and asked me if I knew anything about this. I don't know much but you probably do. Many thanks for your assistance on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

While the album cover would be acceptable in an article about the album itself, our nonfree use standards are more restrictive than general fair use, and generally prohibit the use of fair use images of record covers in musician bios. See the annotation to WP:NFCI#1, which states that, for Misplaced Pages purposes, such images should not be used "when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you. I understand the distinction.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

Chester Brown

Is it really a good idea to remove this image? Louis Riel (comics) is Brown's best-known work—I figured a panel demonstrating his style that also tied in with his politics would be better than a random image. Doesn't it just need a better-written rationale? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about which of the two images would be preferable; I elected to leave the other one in because it not only demonstrated visual style but also carried a caption directly commenting on his dialogue, which is more closely related to his work than a comment on his politics. If you choose to substitute the one you prefer, I hope you'll write a new caption that's more related to the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Non-free lede image in BLP"

Is there a new policy that says BLPs can't use non-free images? Deryck C. 10:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

From WP:UUI#1: "The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. . . . Pictures of people still alive". There are exceptions when taking a new free picture as a replacement is not considered possible, but that is generally limited to prisoners serving life or very lengthy sentences, fugitives, and the permanently institutionalized. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Deryck C. 15:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on Playboy

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995&action=history Hoping you will agree this page should be removed entirerly. None of those sources are even remotely accurate. thank you. Richterer11111 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Austin

It's in a section about the album, being used to identify the album? How is it not fair use? Ten Pound Hammer • 00:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fair use, but NFCC standards are more restrictive than fair use and album images in musician bios generally aren't allowed, per WP:NFCI#1, where the annotation in the guideline states "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Drury

Hi. Can you please explain your edit to this page removing the pictures? You state that there are "multiple replaceable nonfree images", but I'm unsure how you concluded they were nonfree? They were taken by the athlete and posted on her Instagram page. Thanks. Cizzlewizzle (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox image comes from the USA Gymnastics website, which carries a copyright notice on its homepage. The second image indeed comes from Drury's Instagram page, but does not carry any license/release. Copyright is presumably held by its photographer. Both images are accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RFU files

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If you come across any file which clearly fails NFCC#1, you can tag it for speedy deletion using {{rfu}} per WP:F7. Removing the file and orphaning it per WP:F5 means seven days are given to resolve the issue and the file can simply be de-orphaned by re-adding the file to an article. Tagging it as RFU, however, means that only two days are given to sort things out and the file will be reviewed by an admin regardless of whether it's an orphan. The RFU can of course be contested by the uploader, but this will be reviewed by an admin as well. In addition, the RFU notification template is also a little more specific to NFCC#1, which may make it easier for the uploader to understand the problem at hand. Of course, in some cases, it might not be clear where WP:FREER applies, and in those cases maybe FFD is necessary.

Finally, if a RFU image is being used with a caption, you can add {{deletable image-caption}} to the file's markup in the article. The reviewing admin typically goes around removing the file's syntax and captions when they delete RFU files, so you don't have to do lots of manual cleanup after the fact.

These are just suggestions which might help to avoid any confusion on behalf of the uploader and make it a little clearer to them why the file does not satisfy WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Clayton Luckie

Based on your talk page history, you seem to be engaged in a pattern recently of removing images from pages under questionable grounds without any forewarning. Just recently you removed an image that I added to the page for Clayton Luckie which had been left up without problem for over four years on the basis that it "fails NCFF#8" with no further explanation. I disagree with your assessment. NCFF#8 states that such images may be used "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I feel the image illustrates the situation described in a graphic way that text alone cannot and its removal is detrimental to the quality of the article. Unless you can provide sufficient argument otherwise, I intend to restore the image. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you restore the image without achieving consensus for your (rather flimsy) argument that an image of an arrest taking place is necessary to properly understand that the article subject had been arrested, I will remove it again and, if necessary, seek edit warring sanctions. No "forewarning" is required for removing NFCC violations. And I suggest you review the actual outcomes of the complaints you mention, which you obviously have not bothered to do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Miss Hayman

Hi,

I notice you had removed the photo I added to Damaris Hayman's page - File:Damaris Hayman.jpg. Just to say I've put it back with a (hopefully) improved rationale. There are still obvious problems with the file, but I'm hoping you will be lenient. Anyway, it's up to you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cayley glider photo

I have opened a discussion on the article Talk page about the image you deleted. Looking forward to your participation there. DonFB (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Coco Star

File:Singer and songwriter Coco Star.jpg has been there since 2012 and does not tagged as non-free nor a copyright vio. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jm (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: ). Thank you. Jm (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitomi Tanaka

This is not related to any previous articles. I sourced every piece of information from reputable places. I am not sure if this is some type of bias against the subject matter, but there are no grounds to delete this based on what was posted.

She is notable because:

- She has appeared in over 430+ films,

- She has a photobook released of her(Japanese ISBN included)

- There are sources from Japan and America listed including The New York Daily News, Score, Playboy, Mondo TV and TV Tokyo.

- She has multiple wikipedia's in other languages.

- She has made appearances on television shows and I have cited two of them

Also worth noting is that she is a porn star, and she's going to have limited mainstream media events due to it. Places like CNN and the Wall Street Journal in America are not going to be talking about porn, yet alone individual stars, and it's no different in Japan.

She also passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, which were the main arguments used against her last time and if she doesn't pass PORNBIO, I have no idea who would.

You have also said that this is too close to the original article. Non-admins cannot see the original article, so I have no idea what went on there. But all people of something are going to have pages look the same. Ron Jeremy isn't going to have a page that looks like Lance Armstrong, but Lance's page and the page of Alberto Contador are going to look similar, because they are in the same field. She is also going to have the same career and accomplishments as listed before, because that's her career. She's not going to suddenly have cycling results on her page or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

{{subst:DRVNote|Hitomi Tanaka]} ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removal rationale

If you'd have given a clearer explanation for the removal of those two images rather than the blunt, ambiguous "redundant non-free image", I'd have agreed with your subsequent explanation ("violation of NFCC#3a") and neither of us would have undone the other's edit. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removed from article

Greetings. You removed the images from the article Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (blackjack). You might want to participate in the related discussion started here. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover orphaned

Your orphaned the file File:Brettina CD cover.jpeg on grounds that it was a non-free image, resulting its deletion. However, a reference to the image file exists on an of the singer's official page, indicating that a version of the image was released as CC-BY-SA, and the image itself is archived on with the CC-BY-SA notation. — Steve98052 (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The image I removed was identified as nonfree. If you can document that a different version of the image was released under a valid free license -- and ordinarily the copyright to an album cover is held by the label, not the performer -- you may upload that image to Commons and use it in the bio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

About the copyvio tags

Hi. Regarding your edits to File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-C3.jpg and File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-T2.JPG, there are two things you might be unaware of:

The tag that applies is actually F9, not G12.
For both, you must provide at least one source URL so that administrators have valid proof that the page is indeed a copyright infringement before deleting the page in question. If you don't, the CSD will most likely be declined.

Please keep these tips in mind when tagging another copyvio. Thanks! 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:49FD:A4F2:9713:DCC1 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Benico del Toro

Sorry but you where the last established editor on the page. Thanks to an Australian IP who edited the page there is now an internet rumor that BDT is going to be a Fett in the last Jedi. It has since been added the guy who spotted it. I have changed it. Other than that I don't know what to do. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

A kitten for you!

Sorry for experiencing all the bullying here. Internet should be a safe place for everyone where we are respectful and kind to each other, a place where all ideas are valued based on arguments, just like in real life.

MariaOlteanu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Harisu

Regarding your removal of the image, I respectfully disagree. Please take it to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion if you still feel otherwise where it can be discussed properly. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

James Blake Miller Marlboro Marine photo

Per bot notification that it was to be deleted as a result of being removed from the article, I have restored it to the article but in the section about the photograph itself, per the FUC, where it accompanies sourced commentary about the image.

I note your removal rationale was the same as the one you provided for Cory Maye (a picture I uploaded years ago when the article was created), that we may not use non-free images in BLP infoboxes.

This is sort of a new wrinkle on the NFCC to me ... I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created, and in Maye's case I thought that applied since he was in prison at the time and thus not available for photography. I'm not contesting it here because the whole case was so long ago and Maye's appearance isn't the source of his notability, but I still would like to know exactly where this is spelled out in policy.

Further, I wonder if we might not make an exception for people whose notability derives from being the subject of a photograph? Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is my understanding too: " I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created". I have recently restored an image that was taken down by Wolfowitz for this reason. Regards, Soulparadox (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The governing WMF licensing policy resolution and en-wiki's nonfree use policy quite explicitly describe "portraits of living notable individuals" as a canonical example of replaceable nonfree images. As the WMF resolution states, it can't be circumvented by an exception created by "local policies of any Wikimedia project"; therefore, we can't create an exception (via policy or practice)"people whose notability derives from being the subject of a photograph". The standards for when a free image can't be created are quite constraining, and have been pretty much limited in practice to the permanently institutionalized, fugitives, and those under very lengthy terms of incarceration. Cory Maye fell under that latter criterion when the image was originally uploaded, but since his death sentence was later lifted and he was released from prison, it no longer held, and the image had to be removed. The image Soulparadox restored, of Jack Picone is an obvious NFCC violation -- the subject is alive, a reasonably public figure, and currently a lecturer at a notable university. The use rationale does not even claim that the image is nonreplaceable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarity, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk). What is the best option in this case? To obtain permission from the photographer, as this is a possibility? Regards,Soulparadox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rianne van Rompaey. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Steranko

Hi, Hullaballoo. Just asking: Given that the illustration of Steranko History of Comics is the article's only example of the prolific cover-illustrator's book-cover art, and that it also illustrates a book he wrote, it seems it would be as much fair use as anything else in the article, particularly since it additionally demonstrates him as a publisher. Perhaps in this case, it might be worth reconsidering. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. But four illustrations in the article were too many. The other three had use rationales based on supporting particular aspects of the artist;s style, which is a generally acceptable use rationale, while the rationale for this one was simply as illustrating the existence of a project he published -- which on its own is not an acceptable NFCC violation. This one, therefore, had the weakest use rationale. Also, all the illustrations come from a brief (if prolific) early part of his career, and if a book cover illustration was included, I'd think a later one (at least the mid-70s) would be a better choice than another late-sixties-type illustration. I wouldn't mind seeing that Spyman cover go, though, as its value as a style illustration is pretty low, with a Brackett or Shadow cover added further down as a more representative example of his cover illustration style. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you make a reasonable case, though I think it's still a grey area. I guess I'll go along. And it's true, given the choice, a paperback cover, for which Steranko is known and which displays a different, painted style, does make great sense. I would advocate for the Spyman cover in that it illustrates Steranko's first published comic-book work, an inset that shows so much more sophisticated a drawing technique that even that of the estimable George Tuska on the rest of the cover.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Warning In general editors are free to remove comments from their talk page. They are also, with some exceptions, free to bar other editors from commenting there. However your recent edit summary is a flagrant violation of WP:NPA and is unacceptable. Further such abuses may result in administrative sanctions. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors, even when you are in a vigorous disagreement. Civility is among the most important cornerstones of the project, without which it would quickly collapse. Thank you for your contributions but again, please try to keep cool when when you are sorting out differences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"nonfree image outside articlespace"

I noticed that you removed an image from Misplaced Pages:WikiDwarf, because it was a "nonfree image outside articlespace". I'm not familiar with this concept. If you don't mind, could you explain what that means or send me to a WP protocol page? Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC, which is policy, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace" (with a small number of exceptions for technical/maintenance pages). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested full protection for Jane Morgan

You may be interested in this protection request for the Jane Morgan article. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Joyce Hoffman.jpg

It would be better if you had read the file documentation first, before filing a dispute. No clearer example of the Retired individual exception could be found, as I hope you will agree. Please withdraw your dispute. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. She is notable because of her athletic achievements (which, by the way, aren't evidenced in this image). She isn't notable because she looked good in a swimsuit a few decades ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the actual file, and article:

Title: Women's world surfing champion Joyce Hoffman standing with longboard in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., 1964 --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

She's not notable for standing next to surfboards, either. The exemption you're invalidly claiming applies only when the person's appearance is the primary focus of their notability, which isn't the case here. Not even arguably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Help

Hello Hullaballoo,

As you can see from my unintended mistake of uploading the image https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jude_Demorest.jpg, I am a fairly new Misplaced Pages Editor.

So could you please help me find a freely licensed photo of Jude Demorest from the internet?

Or, you could educate me on how to search the internet in general for freely licensed media. That way, I can replace the image in question with a freely licensed image.

Thank you!
Siva

--Sivabhaskar (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ???? Are you there? --Sivabhaskar (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Karen Greenlee drawing.png

Hi! Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karen_Greenlee&type=revision&diff=770124368&oldid=768946066 -- can you just point out for me what policy exactly you're enforcing here? I've tried to read through NFCC and nothing jumped out at me w/r/t disallowing fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is it an infobox thing? Was the fair use rationale not up to some standards? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to see generally to see discussions like this (Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Replaceable fair use for retired, no longer publically active living individuals. The main purpose of the BLP infobox image is to serve as a general illustration of the person who is the central subject of the article; outside of a few very limited exceptions, nonfree images are not allowed for this purpose. It's not unusual, though not really consistent with best practice, for an example of the work of a visual artist to appear in an infobox when no free image of the artist is available, but moving such images to the part of the article they actually illustrate isn't a high enforcement priority. Even treating that drawing as a self-portrait, it couldn't be used to illustrate the subject herself; she isn't notable as an artist, and her art isn't discussed in the article; and there's one image on Commons that would serve to illustrate the general purpose for which the nonfree image is used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the discussion, but I don't see any actual consensus against fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is that written somewhere else in policy? What your saying sounds like you're describing policy (are not allowed, etc.) but I can't seem to find the actual policy that supports your assertion. Thanks in advance for your guidance. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Brian Lumley book covers

You recently removed two book covers from the article Brian Lumley, but your edit was reverted. I have started discussions for the book covers at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg and Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:TAINT-c19035.jpg. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) ntinue reverting repeatedly. - The Bounder (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Lester Brickman

I have a fair use challenge from you, but do not see how to add the "Your reason" information to the page. There are no available free portraits of Professor Brickman. Professor Brickman, who commissioned the portrait from a photographer in 2009 for the purpose of having such a portrait to distribute to media, has given me written permission to use it. If this is not good enough please tell me what I need to do.Curmudgeonette (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Brickman needs to release the image under an appropriate free license. The best way to do this would be for him to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons himself, or for him to send an appropriate permission to you, and for you to handle the matter through the WP:OTRS process. The Wikimedia Foundation generally does not allow Misplaced Pages to use images under Misplaced Pages-only permissions, or licenses which do not allow commercial reuse or modification. It would be perfectly reasonable for Prof. Brickman not to want to donate his intellectual property under these conditions, but if so the photo won't be usable on Misplaced Pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tea Leoni and Tim Daly

Hi Hullaballo, just wondering why you removed the personal life content from these two articles saying that it was not supported by the cited source when that is what the source says (and gives the date of Daly's divorce, for which you added a cn tag). Is there a problem with the reference itself or was this an error? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming a relationship has continued since 2014 requires a reasonably current source. The source cited is from 2015. That's nowhere current enough. You're basically citing a claim of a short-term relationship (no more than a few months) into one of a long=term relationship (multiple years). This is a well-settled BLP issue. The discussion of Daly's first marriage was wholly unsourced prior to the addition of the dating claim, and only partially sourced by the later reference on a different claim. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave me kittens, so here is one for you!

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You gave me kittens today when I saw that an AN/I report had been filed that I was involved with. Next time, just contact Ben and I directly so we can fix it without any dramuh. No harm, no foul. Have a great day!

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image of Ferrari crash

See Talk:Ling Jihua#Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria for comment regarding your recent edit to Ling Jihua. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

could you please be more careful...

I requested restoration of File:Turkish ads use a hairy and disheveled KSM.jpg. On the deleting administrator's talk page I pointed out that the f5 they put in the deletion log should only be used when non-free images had gone without being used for seven days, but, when they deleted it, this image had only gone without being used for about four hours -- that is, since your second excision of it, yesterday.

On their talk page I wrote: "I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's second excision of the image gives the grave appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think they should have let the discussion I opened play out."

Yes, I see, from your signature, that you feel harassed. Let's be clear, my observation that I think you gave the appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND is not an accusation of bad faith. I think you made a mistake. We are all fallible, and, eventually, all good faith contributors will make a mistake -- multiple mistakes.

In my opinion, our goal should not be the unachievable zero mistakes, it should be to recognize early, when we have made a mistake, and to openly acknowledge that mistake, so the people we work with know they can trust us.

In this particular instance I am going to suggest you reconsider your second excision. I am going to suggest you consider acknowledging that you should have let the discussion I opened at Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed play out. Decision making here on the WMF project is supposed to be through consensus, after all. 11:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that, per WMF resolution and nonfree use policy, exceptions to the nonfree use standards cannot be granted by local consensus. This was a garden-variety NFCC violation, and was subject to summary removal. "To illustrate" is not a valid use rationale, otherwise any nonfree image could be used in a pertinent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of important imagery

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Western painting, you may be blocked from editing. ...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me so much as a content dispute. Take it to the talk page please. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western painting. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Modernist I'm seeing edit warring on your part as well. Knock it off. Take this to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Gee whiz...

You pulled an album cover from my wiki entry. I bit of a pain, but I wanted to change it anyway. How can I post a new image that won't ruffle feathers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.186.124 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bob oksner 1970.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bob oksner 1970.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of cover image from Marcia Joanne Bennett

Hello, I see you removed the image of the book cover from Marcia Joanne Bennett. I'm reverting that for the moment because I'd like to discuss it before the file is deleted. She is a minor author with no pages covering individual works, and that book cover is representative. I worked with a couple experienced editors on that page, and this issue was never mentioned. I notice that Template:Non-free use rationale book cover includes "Author" under Purpose of Use]]. I would like for the cover to remain, if it's defensible. Thank you, Stevenarntson (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonfree book covers in author bios, like nonfree album covers in musician bios, are generally disallowed, and cannot be included absent significant sourced discussion of the cover itself (or in the rare case where the author is also notable as an artist and the cover is used as an appropriate example of such work). This is not a matter requiring extensive discussion, and in any case the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to retain a nonfree image in this context. Vestigial language in a template does not outweigh consistent practice and policy consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Incident report opened

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal relationships & sourcing

Hi, re: this removal - firstly I have no issue with it being removed on grounds of notability or just for being gossipy information - but do statements like that really require constant replacement of the reference(s)? A quick Google yields 5+ results from the last month to confirm this information, do we really need to keep the sources up to date when clearly non-controversial? Seems like a lot of needless hassle tbh! Cheers, Nik thestunned 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Constantly, no. The standard I've used has been one year; I've been doing this for a while, and it seems to be pretty noncontroversial. This one had a 2015 source, which was too old. I've seen some real howlers -- chains like A is dating B, B is dating C, C is married to D . . . And we do want editors to monitor BLPs for accuracy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Righto! I guess it does make sense, thanks for the explanation. Nik thestunned 08:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Astounding Brake.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Astounding Brake.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Martin Page Image

You Italic textremoved the image I used for Martin Page's article. I believe it is under fair use, as it is sourced from an independent informational music website, AllMusse too, I would assume that it would be fair use here too. In any case, I'm reverting your edit until we can talk about more this in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI#1 is crystal clear. "Non-free promotional images" of "people still alive" are not acceptable, absent unusual circumstances which are not present here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Alpha Anthology....

I don't know whether you are privilege to any facility that allows you to revert--because you apparently thought that the closure was wrong.Thus I have undone your series of edits. Further you would do better by having a look at WP:UGC(w.r.t to Goodreads)(Also see this and this--about current community stands on the issue--if you aren't already aware!) and why existence≠notability(w.r.t the links from catalogue of MIT Science Fiction Society's Library).I sincerely hope this helps more than your hyperbolic edit summaries helped me.Thanks!Winged Blades 09:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The "privilege" is called "literacy". The close you refer to was a "Keep". That's why it says "Keep" in bold letters at the top. You don't get to change it because you disagree with it. As for the rest of your ranting, your failure to look for sources in obvious places doesn't mean they don't exist. And the contents lists of books are generally reliably sourced to the books themselves; to claim otherwise if mindless pedantry. Now multiple editors have opposed your redirects. Stop edit warring and whining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is w.r.t to this AfD and simultaneous proceedings, where you opposed the merge.Winged Blades 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You are seemingly already aware but still doing this,lest I be accused of canvassing!Winged Blades 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Total Divas

You have been warned. Keep disrupting the page and you will be reported. Another editor (CCamp2013) and I have already told you to stop, so stop. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing copyright violations is not disruption. Verbatim repetition of PR/advertising/promotional text is an obvious copyright violation. Do you really think an admin will hit me with a folding chair on your complaint? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet I have not been "advertising" anything. How is using the correct term (WWE Superstar) of an athletes career advertising or spam? It's used a total of three-four times throughout the summaries, in different sections! You have been warned by me and another editor, it's not advertising. Get off your high horse and stop trying to start drama, clearly seeing your talk page and your act of "everyone on Wiki is out to get me" is a cry for help, just because other editors hold different views and opinions to you doesn't mean they're out to get you. You disrupt the page by removing content that is clearly not used for advertising purposes. You have been the only user to come with this complaint and you should really handle it differently instead of removing it. MSMRHurricane (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What part of COPYRIGHT VIOLATION do you not understand, you loud-mouthed buffoon? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, very mature, I see. This is ridiculous, I don't see how this is accused of copyright when the plot summaries on the pages differentiate from any other site that contains plot summaries of each of these episodes. MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of other sites don't follow our policies and include copyrighted textIf you can't accept that Misplaced Pages doesn't, you shouldn't be editing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand what I said about other sites. I was comparing it to Misplaced Pages, specifically the page I have been editing, and the summaries were different to AVOID copyright violations from other sites. You haven't even given specifics on what was exactly "copyright" and why, therefore I feel your claims are void and null. MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's personal attacks. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Now closed. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Misplaced Pages:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy_CONT) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heritage of Shannara

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, i have mentioned you at the above afd, hope that is ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Per suggestion from Admin

I am wondering why you have been going Wrestling article to Wrestling article removing links to WWE Hall of Fame from them and using the reason as spam? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference see this conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it is spam, promoting a particular commercial enterprise. The WWE-related articles have been riddled with blatantly promotional labels and honorifics, which serve no encyclopedic purpose but inflate the significance and promote the WWE and its performers. Articles like New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys mange to be written without sticking promotional epithets before the names of their most famous athletes. While Victoria's Secret Amge;s are identified as such in their own bios, the lebel is generally not repeated when their names are mentioned in other articles. "Honors" conferred by employees by their employers generally lack broad encyclopedic value, and while they may be appropriate to mention in the actual bios of the recipients, their principal function is other article is primarily commercial promotion. I've been doing this for quite some time (I think starting in 2015 with some particularly spammy use of the phrase "Disney Legend", and there hasn;t been any serious controversy about the practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern over the quality of the articles, but that should be addressed on the articles themselves. Unilaterally labeling Misplaced Pages articles as spam and de-linking them from other articles is likely to be seen at best as arbitrary and possibly even disruptive. I would encourage you to open a discussion somewhere appropriate, possibly on one of the various related project talk pages, and see where things go. You are also free to edit the articles to remove any obviously UNDUE or WP:PROMO material. But just going around and de-linking articles w/o any kind of consensus is probably going too far. I would further suggest self reverting the de-linkings that you have already done. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious you haven't bothered to review what's going on. Neither the WWE, Disney corporate, nor any other commercial enterprise gets to decide how their employees and hirelings are described on Misplaced Pages. Advertising slogans, branding, and in-universe drivel have no place here. If you don't understand that, hang up your admin hat here and go off to Wikia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually what's going on is that one editor is unilaterally declaring a handful of Misplaced Pages articles to be SPAM and is going around de-linking them w/o any kind of consensus. That's an over reach, however well intentioned. This is not your private playground and you don't get to make that kind of decision on your own. Please stop and open a discussion somewhere so that if there are problems on these articles they can be addressed and fixed with some degree of community consensus. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a dishonest fabrication, and you goddamn well know it. I have not declared the articles "SPAM"; if I had intended to do that, I would have put a spam tag on the articles and marked them for speedy deletion. If you really don't understand that process, you have fundamental competence deficiencies that should keep you from acting as an admin in this area. We are talking about inserting advertising slogans and catchphrases into articles about (mostly) living persons. If I were removing the phrase "Must-See TV Superstar" Jennifer Aniston from articles which mentioned her, nobody would bat an eye. As I said, above, and you willfully ignored, I've been doing this for an extended period of time, and there were no serious objections until yesterday -- and they don't relate to the practice in general, but to promotions for one business which has an intense fan base. "WWE superstar" is an advertising slogan, not factual content, and it doesn't belong in an encylopedic biography outside of a very narrow context relating to promotion of a performer's career. We don't describe someone as a "supermodel" merely because their management company does. We don't describe someone as a "porn superstar" merely because their agent does. Hell, we've pretty much scrubbed Misplaced Pages of the phrase "porn star" for the same reason -- because it's promotional, not factual. We have community consensus on the broadly applicable policies and guidelines about promotional content in articles. If you think we should create an exception to these policies and guidelines to allow promotional content related to a particular commercial business, then it's your responsibility to open the discussion, boneheaded as such an action would be. And, by the way, we don't refer to a particular US senator as "Lying Ted Cruz", even though WWE Hall of Famer Donald Trump made that his "official" non de guerre. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to your editing articles to remove promotional language. The issue here is your de-linking those articles elsewhere.

Regarding Anna Richardson

Hi Hullaballoo!

First off I want to say that I should have done this earlier, and probably before simply reverting your edit. I would also like to add that 2A02:C7F:943B:6D00:68F3:6B68:65E4:B764 isn't me.

Ok, with that out of the way, let's have a discussion. I appreciate that the citation used is both paywalled and from a few years ago. I have done some digging, and found some more recent paywall-free sources:

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/celebrity-couple-sue-perkins-and-anna-richardson-adopt-dog-from-animal-lifeline/story-30214293-detail/story.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/29/anna-richardson-turned-down-chance-to-host-great-british-bake-off-out-of-loyalty-to-sue-perkins-6413159/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/anna-richardson-on-the-power-of-naked-attraction-and-leaving-her/

What are your thoughts? Greg (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

REverted your deletion at Nathalia Holt

I haven't seen any rule saying that a non-free book cover can't be used in the author's article. Can you point me to it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of book cover

Hi Hullaballo, Do you have any advice on how to provide the copyright that would allow the display of the book cover in Misplaced Pages? (The book is Risk, Chance, and Causation - Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease" by Michael B. Bracken.) Should the copyright be changed to 'free work'? I have an email from Yale University Press agreeing to the online reproduction of the jacket image of the book. The jacket shows the original work (J. Gillray, "Metallic-Tractors," acquatint, 1801), with minor changes. According to Circular 14 of the US Copyright Office: "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable." Does this apply here? Thank you! LENK2121 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think that applies here. The image has been both edited (not merely cropped) and recolored (not merely filtered). Permission for "online reproduction" isn't enough; the rightsholder must allow use by anyone for any purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hullaballoo,

First, apologies for misspelling your name in the first instance. Second, thank you for clarifying your concerns about the image. Third, if I pursue the rightsholder to allow free use of the image of the book jacket, will that satisfy all requirements for displaying the image online in the Misplaced Pages article? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hullaballoo, Just circling back to you about my question above from July 10th. Any thoughts? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so long the rightsholder issues one of the accepted free licenses, such as the (CC-BY-SA) license listed at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding your edits at Lana Rhoades

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pursuant to that thread, you've not responded to my suggestion at talk:Lana Rhoades. Are there any serious BLP concerns you have that would prevent the restoration of the article for the purposes of an AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Complete lack of reliably sourced biographical content. Nobody's argued that there is any, so there's no reason for any lengthy debate, is there? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Picard pic in Patrick Stewart

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You removed the Picard pic that we had in the Star Trek: The Next Generation section - diff. The rational was WP:NFCCP, point 8, and "also no article-specific use rationale". Not sure what that latter refers to, and I do know you know your stuff. However, I'd suggest that Patrick Stewart as Picard is a cultural icon, and that it's presence would significantly add to readers' understanding. Someone may have rarely or never seen Star Trek, but there's a decent chance they'll recognise Picard from that pic. What do you think? Still no? Bromley86 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content in inboxes?

Hi Hullaballoo, Thanks for your detailed edit comment in reverting my reinstatement of the non-free image of Peter Goldmark. It gave me something to review to get on the same page as you. I'm still not sure that I see the basis for excluding non-free images from infoboxes. When I searched on "infobox" in the links that you provided, the only place that it occurred was in Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, where it said, "A rationale template for logos, assuming they are being used as a header image (standalone or infobox) for the entity the logo represents". Perhaps you could point me to—and quote—the passage that you find to be informative on banning non-free images from infoboxes. I would appreciate that very much to improve my own understanding of the rules of WP. I'll look for your reply, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the general rule is that you can't use nonfree images of living people in their BLPs; there is a very, very, very limited exception for illustrating specific points, which doesn't apply to general illustrations in infoboxes. (There's also an exception for people who'll never get out of prison or are long-term fugitives, but that doesn't apply here). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, Hullaballoo, but I don't see where this rule is that you mention. Please give me the link and the quotation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the very first item in WP:NFC#UUI, which I recommended you give particular attention to: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Hullaballoo. You did point me there, but I failed to grasp what was conveyed. Any thoughts to offer at Talk:Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. or should I proceed, as proposed? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Norton

Hello. Could you explain the reasons for removing the "pink shirt" cover from the Peter Norton article? Is this not "fair use" or is some legal principle being violated here? Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Fair use" isn't the issue. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC are more restrictive than the law of fair use. Absent unusual circumstances, nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, and, with very limited exceptions, nonfree images of the article subjects aren't allowed in BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear with me, I don't yet understand this. The nutshell at WP:NFC says "fair use", can't be replaced by a free image, and must have a rationale. Are these tripwires met? WP:NFCC has no nutshell but the points are no free equivalent, respect commercial opportunities, minimal usage, previous publication, content, a Matrushka doll of nesting requirements at "media specific policy", one article minimum, contextual significance, restrictions on location, and image description page. OK, looking at "media specific policy", it points me back at WP:NFCC so that's a loop. It would be really helpful to me in interpreting all the vaguely legal-sounding text there and tell me where I went wrong 8 years ago? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. Consensus interpretation is that such use fails the contextual significance test. NFCC enforcement has become stricter since you originally uploaded the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Amazon allow such images on their site?

Was there an RfC that determined the "consensus interpretation" regarding the use of images of book covers? wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That discussion, interestingly, says "The one exception would be if the reliable sources about the author also substantially discuss the book cover; if for example the cover were widely hailed as exceptional or were extremely controversial, and that cover was a substantial part of the author's notability." The "pink shirt" cover gets discussed in sources, and became the model for every subsequent jacket photo for Norton. Is that not "contextually significant" ? Unfortunately the Amazon use is no help here; Amazon has enough money to hire more lawyers than anyone who could conceivably sue them so they can make their own rules. Wikimedia doesn't have enough money for that. And I don't have enough money to get Mr. Norton to pose for me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt many or any authors would object to Misplaced Pages publishing low resolution images of their book covers; such images are useful to them as a marketing tool. I realize there are many editors who object to using Misplaced Pages for "free advertising" of products, but that's another rationale. I'm confident that if we published anything that made WMF's lawyers uncomfortable, they would exercise their WP:Office actions rights. On a somewhat related note, I'm puzzled as to why File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg is allowed to stay online, not only in low-res form but as a monster-sized 2,912 × 4,030 pixels image, while its human author has strenuously objected and asserted his copyright rights. Recall the girl who was taken to court for encouraging a boy to commit suicide on social media. The prosecutors asserted that she was responsible for the boy's death even though she didn't literally "pull the trigger". Even if the photographer didn't literally click the shutter, he is still responsible for setting up the photograph and seducing the monkey to push the button. wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation page says, in part "...Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ..." I'm not sure what distinction there is between a "doctrine" and a "policy" nor why this is redundantly designated so, and this page doesn't say what the en.wikipedia project policy actually *is*, but since it's the star project I'm sure its policy, wherever that may be, is compliant. If so, "identifying a protected work" would be included as allowed, as I read this. Surely the WMF has so exercised enough due diligence to warn anyone who, say, wants to print out the Misplaced Pages and sell copies door-to-door, that there are non-free files here that hypothetically require permission to reproduce? Thanks for the continuing feedback. I appreciate the time it takes to educate the copyright novice. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of educating the copyright novice, per this discussion, BU Rob13's proposed talk at Wikimania CopyrightforDummies was evidently declined. Perhaps Rob can weigh in here with his opinion on whether the image of the "pink shirt" cover, which has adorned Norton's bio for years, can be allowed to stay. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a definite disallow. There are potential free alternatives to illustrate the article subject himself, and the book cover is not contextually significant for the article subject. There is no discussion of that image in the text. See WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

But the article says 'The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark. . Please explain! --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I was reading further down the page, since the image renders lower than that text on my screen. With that, it's more ambiguous. Probably meets WP:NFCC#8. You could take it to FFD if there's still concern over it; I'm more an expert on public domain and the nuances of whether someone could make a copyright claim on something (de minimis, freedom of panorama, etc.) than fair use, so I'm not comfortable giving an authoritative statement on this one way or the other given that text in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What's FFD? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:FFD, Files for discussion – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert wars don't help the encyclopedia. Could you please explain why WP has policies for including non-free content? Could you explain to me why, in light of all the above discussino, the picture of the pink shirt cover is in violation of WP policies? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring content policies established by the WMF really doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that's why removing clear NFCC violations like this is an exception to 3RR. Nonfree images of living persons are the canonical example of replaceable images, failing NFCC#1, and nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, per the link I provided to you before, above. Neither the concept of "pink shirt" nor that of "crossed arms" requires a visual cue to be properly understood. If you're going to add nonfree images to articles, you need to understand the nonfree content policies, and asking for endless explanations/justifications of well-established policies, your responsibility is to educate yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is the only policy I'm aware of that's been established by the Wikimedia Foundation.
The Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria Exemption Doctrine Policy was established by community consensus, not by any Foundation directive. There are 67 pages of archived talk discussing the NFCC.
The "learning curve" on this is quite steep. Few of us are copyright lawyers or experts, and our Exemption Doctrine Policy was apparently not written by experts in the field.
All 10 of the Non-free content criteria must be met to include an image in an article.
#8 Contextual significance says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

By your hard-line reading of this, I'm wondering whether any images can pass this requirement. What picture of a book cover is really necessary to understanding an article about the book? A hard-line reading of this would require that virtually all infobox images of book covers in articles about the contents inside the cover should be removed. Omission of a picture of a book cover is not detrimental to understanding an article about the contents of a book, or the reception of the book, or the significance of the book... wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The WMF's licensing resolution, which you cite, states that EDP's may authorize the use of "identifying protected works such as logos", in particular in the context of "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Those two provisions, taken together, create the "space" for the EDP to, by consensus interpretation, treat such cover images as meeting the "contextual significance" test. I've argued, repeatedly, that we should rewrite the EDP to align more closely with the exact language of the Foundation's Resolution on the matter of identifying images, but the prevailing sentiment has been that the practice is generally well-understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of non-free images is by policy not permitted in Biographies of Living persons, because the image fails the test of non replaceability precisely because the person is alive and the possibility exists of taking a suitably free or licenced image. The policy specifically prohibits the uses of book covers to illustrate articles about living persons fo this very reason. However: a loophole exist in the policy that if that specific book is discussed in the text of the article, then the non free image can be used to illustrate the section on the book (because a non free image of the book is not available). In this case, the book is not sufficiently discussed in the article beyond a mention in a list of books. I do find it hard to believe that as Peter Norton is well known, that a free or suitably licenced image is not available from somewhere. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In September 1983, Norton started work on The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC. The book was a popular and comprehensive guide to low-level programming on the original PC platform (covering BIOS and MS-DOS system calls in great detail). The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark.

The second (1988) edition, renamed The New Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC & PS/2, again featured the crossed arms, pink shirt cover image.

Are you claiming that this text does not discuss the cover of the book?? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that readers of the article cannot understand the idea of "crossed arms" or "pink shirt" without a visual aid? It is well-established, and almost universally accepted, that simply describing an image in an article's text is an insufficient justification for the use of a nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Tricky. It mentions that the book exists, but does not actually address the book contents beyond a vague synopsis. It is part of the biography (thus talking about Peter Norton, the person), but not an in depth discussion of the book. As pointed out, the image does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of a BIOS, MS-DOS, a pink shirt or crossed arms. But as posted below, an article specifically about the book could include the image without problem. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But, an article titled The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC could include this image in its infobox, without specifically discussing the cover at all, in blatant violation of the Contextual significance criteria #8? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Use the pink shirt book cover. This is the iconic image of Norton. He's by far best known through the book(s), and that is the only image that most readers have ever seen of him. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Symantec Corporation Legal Notices: Third Party Trademarks—Peter Norton, Peter Norton’s stylized signature, and Peter Norton’s crossed-arm pose are U.S. registered trademarks of Peter Norton. at the Wayback Machine (archived September 11, 2006)

Principality of Wy

Hi Hullaballoo. I'm tidying up some pages, and I've just done Principality of Wy. In it, there's a file that's a copy of a painting of the "royal" family. Reading between the lines, it may have been uploaded by the artist himself (Sam Wade), and the rational that was added by 124.171.5.241 was likely added either by that same uploader, or by the person that commissioned it, Paul DelPrat. He has retained copyright though - it's not CC. Do you think we can fairly use it in that article on his micronation? My reading, from the permission (" critical commentary"), is no.

Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I promise to not treat you like dirt. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages decision making and discussion

You and I have disagreed a number of times. Nevertheless I am going to offer you some advice, the same advice I would offer you if you and I were best friends.

You do realize your signature suggests you have big chip on your shoulder?

You addressed this comment to administrator Explicit. Doesn't it seem confrontational to you? Has anyone suggested you consider that showing a confrontational and uncompromising persona makes it harder for others to take your opinions seriously?

The[REDACTED] has policies, and guidelines, that urge civility, collegiality, and the "assumption of good faith". While these policies and guidelines are often ignored, some my most positive and productive working relationships here have been with people who strongly disagreed with me -- who nevertheless did not take our disagreements as insults.

I remember one of the challenges I got in my first year on the wikipedia. My challenger thought some passages I drafted showed bias. I did my best to not react as if his challenge was personal, rather than concern over my contribution. I ekpt my cool, and asked some questions. He kept his cool too. He said, paraphrasing from memory, "I don't think the article should say X, unless we have substantiation Y. Well, I had read references that substantiated Y. I rewrote some passages.

Result, after our dialogue, and the improvements he triggered, I thought the article was considerably improved. H thought the article was considerably improved, as well. I thought I could look forward to years of positive challenges, like that. I had no idea it would prove to be a high water mark.

I have had other positive interactions with contributors who disagreed with me strongly. One guy in particular I could count on for valuable, fair, challenges, that were really worth taking seriously. I knew if I made a good, convincing point he would acknowledge that point. I think I acknowledged his good points. Over the years, when my google news searches confirmed points he had made, I'd give him a heads-up. I think, like me, he looked to get things right, not struggle to prove his initial points, without regard to whether further research supported them.

I was targetted by a mean spirited clique, some years ago. Their views on controversial topics were close to his. But they were violating policy by attacking my motives and character, not my reasoning. Even though his views were close to theirs, he stuck up for me, my character. His support was a huge relief.

I suggest you will find it difficult to win supporters, who will defend your character and motives, so long as seem bitter, confrontational, and quick to accuse.

Your signature strongly suggests you feel isolated. If I feel you have started to show genuine cooperation, and fairness, I will speak up for your character and motives, even if I am doing so on an issue where I disagree with your opinions.

I am sure I am not the only one.

So, why not consider this? I'd start with retiring the bitter signature.

Did you ever read anything about Benjamin Franklin? He wrote advice for ambitious young men. Part of his advice was to pretend to be humble to your elders. He told ambitious young men that they didn't have to actually feel humble, they merely had to act humble.

It is the same with good faith, the project will work best if we all give the appearance of good faith, and patience, even when our patience is exhausted.

This is the same advice I would give you if you and I were best friends. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Criterion 8? what is it?

Dear Hullaballo, What means "fails NFCC#8"? Regards, Kintaro (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kintaro, Talk page stalker here. It refers to point 8 here. Basically, it's a non-free image that isn't absolutely essential for the article. An easy example for you: a pic is used on the Jean-Luc Picard article, because it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"; that same pic was removed from the Patrick Stewart article's Star Trek subsection as it wasn't essential to understanding Stewart, the article's topic.

In addition, as that pic of Tippett is now orphaned, it's been tagged for deletion. Bromley86 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, Bromley. Anyway, several relevant articles are in connection with this image, so there's no reason to delete it if it can be used. For example, to illustrate articles such as Prehistoric Beast, Dinosaur! ("origins of the project" section) or Go motion. As the photograph was taken while Phil Tippett was obtaining one frame in a go motion special effects process, I simply suggest to use it in the article Go motion (to illustrate the introduction). I did it so you simply need to check... What do you think, Bromley/Hullaballo? Kintaro (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No idea, I'm afraid. I was the one that originally added that Picard pic to the Stewart article, so I'm clearly not an expert on non-free :) . Bromley86 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kintaro: The image fails WP:NFCC #1. The image is replaceable by free content. We do not need to use a non-free image to depict this as a free image can be created which demonstrates the technique. Simply having an image for illustrative purposes is not enough to justify non-free media in this case. I recommend you remove the image from Go Motion and allow the image to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft:, the image's purpose was to illustrate the "career" section in the article Phil Tippett (please, just check over there) because this guy is so closely related to this technique (as it is known nowadays) that he could be pointed out as the inventor. In my opinion, the photo should go back to the Phil Tippett article... Regards. Kintaro (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is unnecessary in either case. We do not need a non-free image to depict him (we have a free image for that purpose) and we do not need this image to depict the technique, as a free one can be created that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok ! Kintaro (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Angelyne...?

Okay, could I get a more thorough explanation? (I am not saying you are wrong, of course, and I had misgivings even when I uploaded the file and added to the article in the first place, but I'd like to understand this better so I do not make mistakes in the future, yes? Especially as the billboard featured in the photograph is specifically discussed in the article and may never again in the future be photographed, which I had come to understand meant it would qualify as fair use as not replaceable by any other potentially free image... It seems you've had a number of people asking you similar questions over the past month or two. But help me out here. Thanks!). KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a nonfree photo of a nonfree artwork. Even if the billboard itself isn't under copyright (which is possible if it were first published before 1989 without an appropriate copyright notice), the photo isn't. There's a strong possibility it could be replaced by a free(r) image, especially given US freedom of panorama rules, and therefore fails NFCC#1. Just because the billboard is discussed in the article doesn't justify use of a nonfree image. The billboard isn't the subject of the article, the person on it is. You don't need a picture of the billboard to understand that Angelyne's picture appeared on billboards; therefore the use also fails NFCC#8. To use a simple analogy: you don't need a picture of their centerfold to understand that a model was a Playboy playmate, even if that's what they're most famous for. If this were an article on "The Angelyne Billboard Phenomenon", it would likely be an acceptable use. But it's a biography of the person, and the standards are different. In general, for the same reasons, we don't allow magazine covers to be used to illustrate the articles of people appearing on them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn Michaels

I am amazed you hadn't already reported it, but I just reported Quiteashtrudel, Kidsndreamers, TheOldestEstablished and TheOldestEstablished to SPI.Marauder40 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Case is here Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Cluebot

Reverted ]. I thought the user was a vandal you had been reverting but the Bot seems to see it as a constructive edit. Is the user a vandal? 2600:1:F15A:C3A1:BD59:8361:B763:3860 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The user is not a constructive editor, and is likely the subject's publicist or someone else close to her. Note, in particular, that their history of "The Kopykats" is heavily faked -- the short run TV show did not win any Emmy Awards and that (at least per IMDB listings) the subject appeared in fewer than half the episodes . The article has been laced with faked and exaggerated claims for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I was interested in your comment here. You seem largely supportive of my proposal but your comment is "Oppose as framed". What modifications would permit you to support the proposal? --John (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

John, I believe it's a question of emphasis. For all that some editors find Hillbillyholiday annoying, his work is overall a substantial net positive. Removing content that doesn't comply with BLP requirements is much more important than salvaging the small amounts of worthwhile content caught up in it, and no balance needs to be struck. Enforcing BLP is time-consuming and relatively thankless, and adding a layer of explaining the obvious will only discourage work in the area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So your !vote is more like a "not guilty" verdict. Thank you for explaining. --John (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Lee Curtis

I suspect you might not like my recent edit of Jamie Lee Curtis. If so, I suggest joining the discussion on the Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Friendly notice: you may have thrown out the baby with the bath water in this recent revert. ~★ nmaia 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi. I noticed you remove some images at Salvatore Riina, Giovanni Falcone, without updating the file page. There were already fair-use rationals for their inclusion on the pages. You claim it fails NFCC#8, but I'd have to disagree, as for example on Riina's page you removed every image except for the infobox, just a sea of text. With the rationals on the file pages I see no reason not to include the images, because they do contribute to the readers experience. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee 14:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There may have been dubious use rationales for the files, but that's not enough. Plus, NFCC standards are stricter than fair use. Multiple nonfree images of the same person, nonfree image of the subject's family, etc, fail NFCC standards and should be removed. And grisly images of people whose deaths may or may not be directly attributed to the article subject really are of little encyclopedic value, and especially unsuitable when their copyright status has been disputed for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend you amend those rationals on their files then. It would not make sense to have them there without the image displayed on the pages. Vaselineeeeeeee 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As nonfree images not used in articles, they'll be deleted after a grace period. I'm certainly not going to create use rationales that I don't believe are valid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Most won't be deleted as they are used on their main pages such as Capaci bombing and Pio La Torre, therefore all the other rationals that do not bear the image any longer, should be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hazel Tucker (2nd nomination)

In 2015, you supported the deletion if the article on Helen Tucker. The vote ended with no consensus. Would you consider voting on my new nomination? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful?

You removed #File:b nNon-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.shana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, with an edit summary " (replaceable nonfree image, also fails WP:NFCC#8"

Since it was discussed already at Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2013_October_27#File:Shoshana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, shouldn't you have voiced your concerns somewhere, maybe Talk:Shoshana Johnson, rather than simply removing it without any prior discussion?

NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

There was massive hysteria over the capture of Shoshana, and her comrade, the tiny blond woman. The press was all over how they were being abused while in Iraqi detention. A liar, who wanted a Green Card, told American intelligence that the women were being raped and tortured. This widely republished screenshot, of the tense and distressed Johnson being interrogated was part of the fuel to the hysteria. I think that makes the image non-replaceable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Spider girls

Hello, my friend. About this, I didn't want to revert. Do you object to it existing as a non-free. Should it go through a deletion process? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the image principally for failing NFCC#1 -- the article subjects are active performers and no reason has been given why a photograph can't be taken and made available as a free image. The NFCC use rationale doesn't address this, and is clearly insufficient. This is routine, and I think just letting it do through the standard orphaned image removal process is the simplest way to handle this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Thank you. (And I promise not to ever, ever treat you like dirt.

) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Berlusconi and The Economist

Sorry but I don't think you have a point regarding that issue. The picture in question has been there for ages and it has every reason to stay where it is. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Uptade: Ok thanks to your intervention the pic has been classified as an orphaned one and thus removed from Commons. Goog job sir. My congratulations. Uptade2: By the way, reading your Talk page, I noticed that you are a big fun of deleting pictures with fair-use rationals. I wonder what your problems are? I'm going to report you wherever possible because your're just harming Misplaced Pages with your imbecile attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conte di Cavour (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Conte di Cavour: WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED or WP:CONTENTAGE are not acceptable justifications for non-free use. Moreover, Commons does not accept non-free content/fair use content, and such files will be deleted from Commons when they are discovered. If there's a particular non-free file you wish to use in a Misplaced Pages article, you should upload it locally to Misplaced Pages; however, before doing so you should make sure the way you want to use the file complies with non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for each use, and satsifying one or just some is not enough. Non-free use can be particularly tricky in some cases, so please ask for assistance at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC if you have any questions about it.

As for the other stuff you posted above, Hullaballo Wolfwitz is quite expereinced when it comes to assessing non-free content use. This does not mean mistakes are not occasionally made, and if they are they can be fixed. However, instead of insulting Hullaballoo Wolfwitz, automatically assuming he is wrong and engaging in edit warring, it would be more constructive to civilly ask why the file was removed, and whether there is anything which can be done to resolve any non-free content policy issues it may have. In addtion, assuming the other posts you refer to on this page are automatically right because they are similar to yours is also not a really good thing to do. Non-free use needs to be assessed independently as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE so the circumstances of these other posts might be completely different. It's also possible that those other editors are also not very familiar with Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy and it is they not Hullaballoo Wolfowits who is wrong. Looking at your user talk page, there are quite a lot of notifications about image use posted over many years; so, following the rationale you used above, one might jump to conclusions and assume that you do not have a very good grasp of relevant policy when it comes to image use on Misplaced Pages. Just as you would probably not appreciate someone seeing those posts and assuming the worst about you, you should not be so quick to assume the worst about Hullabaloo Wolfowitz.

This edit sum you left shows a common misunderstanding that many editors make when it comes to non-free content use: mistaking the US concept of fair use and Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy as being one and the same. As explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE, Misplaced Pages's policy is purposely more restrictive than US copyright law, and it is Misplaced Pages's policy which needs to be satisfied, regardless of whether you believe the file qualifies as "fair use". The non-free use of magazine, book, album covers, etc. can be especially hard to justify when they are not being use as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the work in question for the reasons given in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. In the Berlusconi article, this means that the particular cover of Time itself would need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary, not just comments about what the magazine reported about Berlusconi. So, just wanting to show that Berlusconi appeared on the cover is not a sufficient justification for non-free use (see item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI); there needs to be specific sourced content about the cover itself. A file such is this is only iconic or historic if reliable sources discuss it and say it is. The removal of Berlusconi from office may have been a historic event in Italian politics, but does not automatically mean (as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC) that all media images, etc. associated with tevent are also historic.

If you believe that such content can be found and added to the article along with citations to reliable sources in support, then explain things to Explicit (the administrator who deleted File:The Economist "Berlusconi Basta" cover (2006).jpg from Misplaced Pages: it was not uploaded to Commons) to consider "undeleting" it or make a request for undeletion at WP:REFUND, Files which are deleted are not gone forever, but rather they are only hidden from public view. Non-free files can be restored if their intended use is judge to comply with relevant policy. Another option might be to ask the the file be temporarily restored, so that it's non-free use can be further discussed at WP:FFD. For what it's worth, if I would have come across this type of non-free use, I would've likely removed the file from the article as well for the same reasons given by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz based upon the way the filke was being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deletion spree. GAB 01:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard the above notice. The thread has been closed without any prejudice to you or your editing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FUR

You will notice that there is a fair use rationale on the image. If you feel it was placed incorrectly, or is not valid, argue for it there. Removing an image for an unspecified consensus is wrong. Furthermore, WP:BRD. Where's the discussion? Not at the image. Not on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That fair use rationale is only applicable to the album article, and can't serve for an use of the image in Terry Scott Taylor. And even if there was one for an use in Terry Scott Taylor, it is highly unlikely that it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just to add to what Jo-Jo Eumerus posted, just changing the article paramater like this without further revising the rationale according is not really a valid justification for the new non-free use per WP:JUSTONE; so, in my opinion, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removal of the file was correct. WP:NFC#cite_note-3 is pretty clear on how album cover art may be used; so, when a stand-alone article about an album is merged into an article about the artist, the non-free use justification for any album covers being used also needs to be a reassessed. The non-free use rationale is this album cover is for one being used as the primary means of identification at the top of a stand-alone article about the album, not in a sub-section about the album in the artist's article. Moving {{infobox album}} as part of a merge, does not automatically mean any non-free album cover(s) being used in the original infobox should also be moved. Unfortunately, how non-free image use will be affected by such merges is something often not touched on in AfD's like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Knowledge & Innocence even though it's something always impacted. I've pointed this out in other AfDs such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones, but was told such reassessing was part of the normal process. It's not apparently as normal as some believe, but rather depends upon how aware those participating in the AfD, closing the AfD, or doing the subsequent merge are of WP:NFCC. Perhaps, something about this needs to be added to WP:MERGE, WP:AFD, WP:AFDAI, or somewhere else so that editors/closers are made better aware of this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much else to add, except that there was a lengthy discussion several years ago which covered, inter alia, the analogous question of whether nonfree book covers could be used when the individual book article was merged into an author bio or series article -- and the conclusion, as here, was generally against the use. As Marchjuly notes, the matter is clearly address on the NFC page and no extended discussion is required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Then nominate the image for deletion as its article does not exist and, according to you, the FUR is invalid. I'll be glad to debate it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Terry Scott Taylor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There is a fair use rationale and so removing the image is wrong. Removing referenced content is also incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Competence is required, Walter, and you're not showing it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

While you may be in the "right" you posted on his talk page as if you were an Administrator - that's a big no-no. You don't have the authority to block, you're just another editor, and "last warnings" are bad form. Shape up, mate. Take him to ANI if that is what is requried.104.169.28.113 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Paddy Casey

Hi there, you removed an edit made by myself on Paddy Caseys page citing it as unsourced gossip, I have known Casey the past two years through his relationship with Sophia, this information is correct, Misplaced Pages is a forum where all are entitled to contribute information they may have, you have removed my contribution for being correct. In this instance you are sorely wrong. KO0506 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Um, even if that information is correct it needs to be sourced especially since it's information about a living person, and that information was not sourced. And no, you are not entitled to contributing unsourced information about a living person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

Please respond to your email or put your response here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File PROD

Hello again. I noticed that you have continued to remove images from articles, i.e. orphaning them, mainly on grounds of not meeting WP:NFCC#8. This year, we have extended {{subst:prod}} to files per RfC discussion at WT:PROD. {{subst:deletable image-caption}} has also added another parameter to fill in a reason for deletion, i.e. one of CSD types or PROD. I wonder whether you have known the changes. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As per the current AN/I thread...

...take it to FFD and don't edit war. The image was a FUR so it is not "obvious" per the policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The exact issue -- nonfree book covers in author bios -- has been discussed repeatedly at MCQ and elsewhere, and the essentially unanimous conclusion has been that, in the absence of substantive discussion about the covers themselves, such uses are NFCC violations. That still-pending discussion does not invalidate specific, settled consensus and require that every patently disallowed use be relitigated ad nauseam. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and insisting that established consensus be reestablished every time an issue arises is just disruption to make a point. You know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Honey Wilder

Hi, you have put a redirect on Honey Wilder's page. I see that you have REDIRECTed the page to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. As Honey Wilder is a separate entity, her separate page should stay. I am removing your REDIRECT. Request you to not to put it again. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Your multiple removals of the redirect for the page were incorrect and contrary to established practice. In the absence of substantive sourced content regarding the article subject, consensus calls for redirecting the article to the page regarding the only sourced claim of significance. This consensus is confirmed by many AFD discussions relating to not only adult film performers, but also, within the erotica industry, Penthouse Pets and even Playboy Playmates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A discussion

Hello. This is related to an appropriate redirect for Janet Jacme you created , which was reverted which was then restored by me and then was reverted again by the same editor . First, I wasn't aware that consensus had developed for creating redirects as an alternative to AfD (as noted in the above section). In any case, I moved this article to Draft space. There is a discussion about this on my talk page here, if you would like to chime in. I am hoping you do. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

As one of Misplaced Pages's most experienced Misplaced Pages editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wadsworth Jarrell

Hi there. I saw that you removed the photograph of Jae Jarrell here in the Wadsworth Jarrell article under the rationale that "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It does indeed pass the policy to be included in the article, just like the paintings that are placed in the article. This article, which was reviewed in great detail many years ago (including photos and fair use usage) features an entire section that discusses the work Revolutionary, in which Jarrell took influence from Jae Jarrell's iconic fashion design to create one of his most groundbreaking and famous paintings. I have reverted your edits, as this photograph is important in explaining this context. Without seeing a photograph of the dress, one may not quite understand the concept of the dress, the intimidation it is meant to show, and frankly it helps to provide context that I do believe would be detrimental to understanding how it influenced Jarrell's "revolutionary" work that was dedicated to Angela Davis. Thanks for editing Misplaced Pages and if you wish to discuss this further please bring it up on the talk page of the article so we can get more feedback. Missvain (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For providing a reason to laugh heartily in that place most devoid of necessary humor, ANI. Thanks for puncturing some pomposity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Close

Frankly I am not going to bother re-opening it since its just a waste of your time. You know your interpretation and implementation of NFC is correct, almost every other editor with a cluepon knows its correct. Let Swarm have his last word. Suffice to say the utter bullshit they responded to me with is a good indication of their level of knowledge of how NFC is handled and considered. (Not to mention general practice, closing a discussion you have have opined in almost straight after commenting? Ha.) The photo one however probably should have been left in with a discussion on the talkpage first. Its not obviously a invalid use and in this *particular* case the photo is inextricably bound up with the caption. The story had it been printed entirely in text 'Israeli policeman beats up palestinian' and it later turned out to be incorrect is a non-story. It likely wouldn't have even made the news to require a correction in the first place. The only reason it became a thing is because of the photo. You *could* describe it entirely in prose, but without the photo to provide emotive context its not really possible to adequately describe its impact. I am quite confident any discussion would come down on the side of inclusion based on that argument alone. I agree on the others however. Softlavender in their final comment does actually put their finger on why they also do not understand NFC enforcement. Note the lack of 'valid' in their comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With my compliments-

File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg :) We hope (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bazooka (instrument). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your utter incompetence is not my problem. This ia as phony a complaint as is imaginable. It is hard to see this post as anything but dishonest. I am asking for sanctions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A slight tweak can sometimes yield big results

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. I do think you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if (as I suggested in #RFU files) you make a slight change in your approach. This will allow you to continue doing the good work you do assessing NFCCP problems and also kind of make others have to focus on the quality of your edits instead of on you. Just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#1 with a template and leave it for an admin to deal with it. You can be bold a remove the file once, but just tag it with the rfu template if its re-added. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. F5 deletions take at least five days, whereas F7 deletions take at least two. If someone wants to edit war over the template, let them do so. They will end up being the one trying to explain themselves at ANI or AN3.

Same goes for any NFCC#8 violations you come across; be bold and remove the file, but use {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, prod, or even FFD if it's re-added. NFCC#10c violations and items 1 and 2 of WP:F7 are probably the only things going to be considered WP:NOT3RR, so just pass the baton to someone else for anything else after the first revert. Your assessments seem to be accurate and so they will most likely only be reaffirmed by a reviewing admin or an FFD consensus. If the file continues to be added after being removed by and admin or FFD discussion, then you would be justified per NOT3RR to continue to remove it and will be able to cite the admin's edit or FFD discussion in your edit sum each time you do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi. I don’t know much about non free use and you seem to. Can I ask you something? I uploaded this image of a murdered person for the article about the murder. I can’t find a free picture of the victim. Is it appropriate (under US law and WP guidelines) to use this image on that page? If so, a bot is asking for a “tag”; do you know what that means? —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You can make a fair case on the subjects biography a non-free picture (as they are deceased) would be acceptable due to the inability to get a free one. On the article about the murder what the victim looks like is almost never going to be relevant or add anything useful, so it would fail. -edit- Ah I see there is no biography and everything relevant is in the 'Murder' article. That could go either way. Personally I would say its not a valid case for a non-free image. Plenty of people would argue either way. Probably needs an FFD. There is a credible argument (but not one I agree with) that as all the biographical info is in the murder article, it meets the minimal use. US law is largely irrelevant, as ENWP applies stricter standards for fair use than would otherwise be the case in the US. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I’ll just let the bot delete the image, I think. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

ho, ho, ho

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

AfC submissions
Random submission

2+ months

1,883 pending submissionsPurge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

C. K. Saraswathi image removal

The image contained still photos of C. K. Saraswathi as she featured in two films - one when she was young and the other when she was older. What does it have with the person living or dead? I have taken screen shots from those movies and uploaded it just as an identification because there were other actresses with same name. I can't understand the logic of removing film screen shots because her death is not quoted with a citation. --UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC, implementing WMF policy, bars use of nonfree images to illustrate the articles of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not claimed or present here. An uncited claim in another Wiki

I write articles in good faith. I never create articles with matters unknown to me personally. Even when I cite sources, I thoroughly read the whole article before quoting. I personally know that she is dead. But I am unable to find a citation because she died in 1997 when Internet was not widely used in India. I have to find newspaper hard copies in either libraries or in the newspaper publishing houses. I am not in a position to do such strenuous work. Therefore, let my effort and time (and expenses) in creating that image go waste.--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Award winner please assist in allowing me to get it right before removing

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. The respect is earned, so with my first impression of your namesake it's no doubt a frustrating first impression. There were several links provided as additional references to have me fully correct what you initially removed from the section "casting". Mark a win up in that category for me I guess. However it now seems this has enraged you to go in and try to do more removal without provocation on every image but 1 for the page Up_on_High_Ground_(TV_series). I do know you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if you would send me a mere talk page message first before presuming the images are replaceable non-free images. Copyright is indeed held by its photographer or company. If you would follow what you were awarded with on the The Misplaced Pages Excellence Award and actually find that that the sources of these images are straight from the internet official TV show website with no copyright infringement disclaimer thus they are free. Also these are found on flikr and tv.com. It's clear these screenshots are NOT violations when diminished in quality and size as accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. Please save the page as it was before you discovered it and just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#-whatever with a template and leave it for an admin or better yet me who wrote the page to deal with it. You can just tag it with the {{request edit}} User talk:Techform. Moreover if its something like this that you feel so strongly about like in the history edit to simply note it's "clutter", for a TV page that helps articulate a story with TV screenshots. I don't understand your rationale? What a short and inconclusive assessment of you to spend time removing or perhaps even vandalizing. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. A gross violations of WP:NFCC, patently invalid use rationales and Content disputes are a hearty appetite to use in bulk on 1 page like this.

Can you please explain your suggestions so I can perhaps use commons, or even better NFCC reasons for the pictures? I spent some valuable time getting this page well rounded and would like to get this back to its previous edit with images instead of removing them please. With respect, and frustration... the tone of this is asking for help, no disrespect, i'm just frazzled. User talk:Techform Techform (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Machine Gun Kelly (rapper)

Greetings. Hope all is well. I would like to have MGK’s name corrected on wikipedia. His name currently reads as “Richard Colson Baker”, but it should read “Colson Baker”. Can you please make sure that every area that references his name is changed to “Colson Baker” CloserNYC (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the name as presented in the article appears to be well-sourced. If you want it changed, you'll need to present reliable sources showing the name as currently reported is incorrect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

inadvertent rm

Hey, if you look at Ceoil's talk, as far as I can tell somehow you inadvertently rm'd my last msg when you were rm'ing that img. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you're also protesting the concept of archiving talk pages. Up the academy, brother! Stick it to The Man. :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That Userbox

When I logged on today, I noticed that you had removed the non-free image (or whatever it was called), which I am completely fine with. However, this means the box currently has no image. Is there a way I could obtain a valid image for the box? Awesome Diamonds (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is against policy, but I will quickly bump this Awesome Diamonds (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Image of book cover on David Meade (author)

Thanks for your comment that " it is well-settled that WP:NFCC does not allow nonfree book cover images to be used as general illustrations in author bios." I was not aware of this convention (obviously) - to avoid making similar mistakes in future, can you point me to where such decisions are available? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I wasn’t aware of it either. Btw, I’m still doing improvements to the David Meade article on occasions. I did found out that his prediction was also labeled as hype in a news Washington Post has relating to th Doomsday Clock. I also changed the section “Reception” to “Reactions”. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Refer to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 for more specific details, but non-free cover art (e.g., book, album, magazine, etc.) is generally allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the works in question. So, if someone wants to write an article about the book (see WP:NBOOK) and use the file for identification purposes in that article, then that type of non-free use would typically be considered OK. Use of non-free cover art in other articles or sections of other articles is much harder to justify and the long-standing consensus has been that it usually only considered apporpriate when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Simply saying that person A wrote book B and then adding a non-free image of book B's cover is highly unlikely to be sufficient context to satisfy NFCC#8, which is why I agree with HW's assessment of the non-free use in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That Planet X book was written by Meade himself. Do you think the article is fine without it though? —LovelyGirl7 talk 02:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I think it's fine to mention that Meade wrote the book, but I don't think you need to see a cover of the book to understand that. If you want to add more content specifically related to the book's cover to the article (e.g., perhaps there was some controversy over its selction, Meade is also an artist who created the cover, or it otherwise was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources), then it might be possible to justify the non-free use of the file in the article. However, a cover image is not needed simply because Meade wrote the book and there is content in the article that says he wrote the book. That type of use is considered to be pretty much WP:DECORATIVE and is typically not allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It does kinda suck that the cover of Meade’s book isn’t aloud in the article due to Misplaced Pages policies. I think my article looks good, with or without it. What about a picture of David Meade (would it work better than the Planet X book)? —LovelyGirl7 talk 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A freely licensed or public domain image of Meade could be used, but a non-free image of him would most likely not meet WP:FREER. In general, non-free images of living persons are only rarely considered acceptable under certain specific conditions (see item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for some of these). This is because Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy encourages us to use free licensed images of living whenever such content exists or there is a reasonable expection that it can be created. People might not know who Meade really is, but if he's out in public giving interviews or making other appearances such as book signings, etc. then it seems reasonable to expect that someone could take a photo of him, and then upload it to Commons under a free license. You can if you want try to email the copyright holders of any images you may see online of Meade per WP:PERMISSIONS and see it you can get them to agree to release them or donate them under a free license accepted by Misplaced Pages. Maybe Meade or his representatives would be willing to donate an image per WP:DONATEIMAGE.

Finally, just one minor but very important thing about Misplaced Pages. You wrote in you last post I think my article looks good, with or without it. Techically, there are no "my articles" in Misplaced Pages per Misplaced Pages:Ownership of content; in other words, the subject and creator of a article do not have a final editorial control over the article's content. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative editing project and article improvements are made by being bold and through consensus. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you are basically agreeing to give anyone anywhere in the world permission to revise or even remove whatever content you just added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, @Marchjuly: that's one mistake I won't make again. Now I'll go and make a different mistake instead...

--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I was talking about the book cover (that my article is fine with or without it. I do see some David Meade images on Google Images, but I wonder which one will Misplaced Pages accept (or where do you find the license for them)? For example, I found this one for example, but I wonder where does it say which license it comes from. —LovelyGirl7 talk 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment about your referring to David Meade (author) as "my article" has nothing to do with image use. As I posted, there are no "my articles" on Misplaced Pages per WP:OWN, so even though you may have created the article written about Meade, it is technically not your article so to speak. As for the image you linked to, its best to assume that any content you find online is protected by copyright unless (1) it clearly says that it has been released under a free license compatible with WP:COPY or (2) you have a very strong reason to believe that the content falls wthin the public domain. In the case of (1), you still need to be careful because quite a number of people, companies, organizations, etc. upload photos, etc. that they do not hold the copyright on to their websites, and some of these then might even mistakenly claim ownership over whatever they upload. This might be fine for them, but it's not fine for Misplaced Pages or Commons. Regarding public domain (case (2)), this typically means that the content is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, or so old that its copyright is considered to have expired. There are other reasons why things on in the public domain, but complexity (or lack thereof) and age seem to be two of the main ones.

The image of Meade you linked to was uploaded to some organization's website. It seems unlikely that they are the original creators of the image, rather whoever wrote this probably just found the photo online and decide to use it for the story. The photo looks like it's attributed to "Planet X News", so maybe they own the copyright on the image. You might want to ask at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions for help because someone there might be able to figure out were the image originally came from and how its licensed. Maybe the original creator of the image did release it under a free license, but that needs to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you. I brought up "my article" when I was refering to the Planet X book image. I will ask media copyright questions about the Meade images (I did). --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards being added from ip

156.194.53.205 (talk · contribs)

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I reverted this ip's addition of multiple awards to Stormy Daniels, because it looks too similar to past award spamming. You seem to keep good track of which awards are spam or not noteworthy. I'd appreciate your help figuring out which of the awards this ip has added should remain, if any. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Saw your comments at the AfD on Peter Wang (cadet) and I think you hit the nail on the head. Check out bottom of my talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

integrity of living persons

Thank you for articles around science fiction, such as The Pirates of Zan and The Planet on the Table, illustrated by cover art, for Kenneth S. Fagg, for many "create as redirect" and deletion discussions, for watching over biographies of living persons, and editors who are living persons, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

seconded. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I used to see you around more, swung by your page to see whether you're still active. Delighted to see that your are!E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1867 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

FYI that this has been filed by another user. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Anchorvale. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, A. J. McCarron, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Lane

The SI image in the Lisa Lane article is eligible as it meets the Non-free media rationale for Lisa Lane. IQ125 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert Conroy Goldston image

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I saw you removed File:Robert Goldston01.jpg from the article. Just in case you didn't notice, you might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. There is a claim that this person is dead, thus the article is not really a BLP. I had a lengthy discussion about this with the closing admin at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/August#Close for FFD about the non-free use of File:Robert Goldston01.jpg just for reference. I'm not saying the file shouldn't be removed. I did tag it for speedy deletion per NFCC#1, but that was declined here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That FFD discussion really shows off a major problem with NFCC enforcement. NFC policy requires that a disputed image be removed from an article absent consensus that it meets NFCC requirements. However, FFD practice too often treats no consensus (on NFCC issues) as defaulting to keep. I think the closing admin would have been better advised to remove the image from the bio page and, unless either a satisfactory rationale was provided or an appropriate use was found in a different article within the standard time, let automatic deletion take its course. Which is what should happen now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW he is most certainly dead. It just cant be reliably sourced online. I expect there are print obits. The main problem is that he died in Palma in the Spanish islands in the early 80's. The L’Enciclopèdia d’Eivissa i Formentera (a local council/governement encyclopedia specific to the islands) shows him as dying in 1982, and there are forum posts from his grandchildren online that state that date (and place). As one of them said - 'No one asked us'. Best bet if you wanted a reliable source would be to try and get hold of some newspapers from the time. Otherwise I agree with everything HW has said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't that qualify as an RS? At first glance, it looks better than all sorts of sites that have been deemed acceptable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  - I would broadly agree. And tbh I would expect the local government (or chamber of commerce/tourism, its something along those lines) to keep tabs on its notable citizens and know if they were dead or not. But I dont speak Spanish, so I would be happier if a Spanish-speaking editor would give the site a once-over regarding its setup, who runs it, who contributes etc. Its certainly the most authoritive non-primary thing I found online. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    - @HW: I agree with what you posted, especially about "no consensus" defaulting to "keep" for NFCC discussion and everything about the NFCC does, IMO, suggest that it shouldn't be done. However, there are those who think an NFCC FFD should be closed exactly the same as any other XfD, so they keep no consensus files. Until this is clearly clarified one way or another, it's likely to continue. FWIW, I rfu'd the file, but that was declined; I then FFD'd the file and the best argument that the other side come come up with was basically WP:BDP is unrealistic. I also asked at BLPN about whether Goldston can be treated as deceased for Misplaced Pages's purposes and the clear consensus was that he can't and that the file shouldn't be used. I meant to go back and FFD it again, but forgot about the file until the article showed up on my watchlist when you removed it.

@OID: I tried to find something to source his death, but never had any luck. Maybe asking about the one you found at RSN could help determine whether it's an RS. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: The file has been re-added to the article. This why letting automatic deletion take its course does not always go as planned, especially with F5 removals. So, it's probably best to start another FFD on this so that it can be resolved once and for all since the only other option would likely lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
HW and Only in death. I didn't directly ping either of you, but if you'd like to comment at WT:NFC#Non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg since there are similarities between the non-free use of that file and the non-free use of the Goldston file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

About Removing An Image

Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the image File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg from Mosharraf Karim for staying in infobox. You gave a reason that it was non-free and stayed in infobox. I have a question, cant a image stay at infobox if it is non-free? Thank you.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the rule deals with nonfree images in BLPs, that is, biographies of living persons. The general rule, based on Wikimedia Foundation policy, is that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies, with very limited exceptions for cases like prisoners serving life sentences and fugitives. See WP:NFCC#1. However, there are also narrow exceptions when the image itself is the subject of specific sourced commentary in the article. In those cases, which are rare, the image should be placed inline, adjacent to the text commenting on it. An infobox image is intended as a general illustration, not one illustrating a specific section of text. I'd also note that the file page contains two significant errors -- first, the page provides no reason why the file cannot be replaced by a free image, which generally means that it cannot be used; second, it states that the file is available under a noncommercial use license (which is to some degree relevant to our use of news agency and similar images), but the source page actually has a standard copyright notice and the statement "Any unauthorized use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action". That is not a noncommercial use release or license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, Thank you very much. I got the point.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Victor Dubowitz

As per the above, you removed the image above, which I have restored. Don't remove it, the person is dead. It is courteous to leave a message. scope_creep (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the article subject provided has died. The use rationale says nothing about the subject having died. He is currently listed as alive in university directories. He was making public appearances as recently as last spring. You need to provide reliably sourced information otherwise to demonstrate your claim. Otherwise, you have no business telling any other editor not to remove presumptive NFCC policy violations. Period. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Victor Dubowitz. You should communicate, but your bolshie parasitical attitude sets people off, because you don't communicate. I have now got a red disruptive warning, the first ever, because you don't want to talk. scope_creep (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your input regarding my illegal and seemingly politically motivated block. It seems that there’s just no way to edit articles that are sensitive to some people without them getting their feelings hurt and claiming bad faith. They want the article to say exactly what they want and nothing more. BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-free image inclusion or exclusion criteria clarification

Hello, I am requesting your input in the talk page on Richard Felix Staar. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Again, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just noticed the detailed answer to another question addressed to you, under the title About Removing An Image in your talk page here. The exact question that the other user was having about removal of an image in infobox of an article that is a BLP, is the question I was having as well. In both cases you are citing WP:NFCC#1 as the reason for deletion. Then you go on in elaborating further by saying among other things that "that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies". Could you please point me to the official rules of Misplaced Pages that say that? So far I have only found WP:NFCC#1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."; I could see how the part that says "or could be created" is maybe the key clause that your point is based in. However, that NFCC#1 is so brief that it can have multiple interpretations, and I wonder if somewhere else in the official rules of Misplaced Pages that point/rule is unpacked. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The headnote to WP:NFCC directs users to WP:NFC for fuller discussion of the applicable standards. WP:NFC#UUI#1 states that nonfree "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" are not acceptable uses; while there are very narrow exceptions, those apply to prisoners serving lengthy or life sentences, fugitives and insurgents, and others in similar situations, not applicable here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair Use Image

I am going to be direct. In March 2018, you deleted a fair use image on the page of a recording artist. You gave the reason for removal as "obviously replaceable." The image is from a 1969 Newsweek article and clearly not replaceable, (the photo was taken fifty years ago). The image lived on the artist's Misplaced Pages page and on Misplaced Pages Commons for many years, providing educational, encyclopedic information for readers. Not only did you delete the image, you removed the entire image file from Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages Commons, so that there is no history of the image. Either you do not understand the rules of fair use, or this was an act of spite, or both. The image was backed up by a clear, well reasoned rational. Because you deleted the entire image file, you made it impossible for anyone to read the rational. You unilaterally made the decision that no one can ever see the image and rational. If you were incorrect in removing the image, you are making sure no one can question your decision. Your motives are suspect. This appears to be a case of vandalism. Magdalamar (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Just for reference, Hullaballoo Wolfwitz is not an administrator, and only administrators can delete files, etc. HW can, of course, nominate files for deletion or discussion, or be bold and remove them if he feels that their use does not comply with relevant policy and guidelines just like any other editor can, but such files are typically reviewed by an administrator before being deleted. If you know the name of the deleted file, then you can figure out which administrator deleted the file and ask them for clarification. If you don't remember the file's name, then the name of the article from which it was deleted can be used to track down the image. If a mistake was made, then it was made in good faith and perhaps the file can be restored via WP:REFUND. A deleted file is not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and can be restored if whatever issue led to its deletion is later resolved. Moreover, when files are removed, the uploader is typically notified on their user talk page by either the editor who did the removing, a bot, or an editor who works on file maintenance issues; so, if you uploaded the file, you should've received a notification regarding it.

Some other things. Commons does not accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR. So, if the file was mistakenly uploaded to Commons, then it was properly deleted. Also, being in use for a long time is not typically a good indication of valid non-free use per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; it could just be an indication that nobody noticed the file's non-free use did not comply with relevant policy until HW did. Finally, you should be careful about WP:NOTVANDAL since removing inappropriate non-free images is not vandalism at all, but a necessary action. Once again, if a mistake was made, then the best thing to do is to ask for clarification instead of making accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This one's an open-and-shut case. The disputed nonfree image was used in, and depicts, Lotti Golden. That article includes three free images of Golden, a living person, so nonfree images of her are generally barred by WP:NFCC#1. The article includes no discussion of the disputed image, a bog-standard publicity shot. Magdalamar appears to be an SPA who edits primarily on matters related to Golden and probably has WP:COI issues. Their talk page shows that quite a few other images of Golden they uploaded have been deleted for failing NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really invested to go change it, but that last section 're-emergence in 2010' is playing silly buggers with sourcing. The photo is not listed as one of the photographers favorites (as the WP article indicates) in context its talking about the level of fame of the subject and its impact on the photos. Secondly there is no indication its anything to do with a 're-emergence' in that source, since it doesnt indicate when the photo was from (previously unpublished means it could be from anywhere in her career) and its a restrospective of a photographer, nothing to do with her personally. I havnt taken a look at the rest of the article, but if the use of sources is that... flexible a talkpage stalker might want to have a browse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Louise Pearce – Image

Regarding your position on the image previously at https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Nicole-Pearce-Paul-Luckman-1982-Booking-Photo-Mug-Shot.png:

"This is a replaceable nonfree image of a living person who has served their prison sentence, and is therefore not allowed under NFCC#1. There is no policy-based claim of an exception for "booking photos"

I will be resubmitting this image with the following further explanation:

This media is a booking photo of Paul Luckman, now known as Nicole Pearce, produced in the regular operations of Queensland and New South Wales Police, widely circulated in print, television and later film, from May 7, 1982 and onwards, in the public domain.

The picture preserves the individual's unique brush with the law for posterity.

Source: New South Wales Police department of photographic records.

Found at various independent sources: For example: The Canberra Times, Friday 3 Dec 1982; Buried Alive, Crime Investigation Australia, Channel 9, Season 3, Episode 9; and Daily Mail (Online) "Australia’s most sadistic child killer Robin Reid, who shaved victims’ hair as trophies, will kill again if released", Candace Sutton, 16 May 2014 (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2628740/Sadistic-Australian-child-killer-Robin-Reid-maim-kill-boys-released-prison.html).

Author: Unknown photographer, source only given as "New South Wales Police department of photographic records." No explicitly freely-licensed image is suitable for illustrating the subject's arrest, is likely to be found or become available, however this image has been repeatedly published across print, television and film since 1982.

The work used will be of inherently lower quality than the original photograph reducing the risk of any competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for any value of versions held by any possible copyright owner.

{{Non-free use rationale 2 | Description = Booking photograph. | Author = New South Wales Police | Source = Released to print, television and film media from May 7, 1982, extensively republished/rebroadcast/rescreened since. | Article = https://en.wikipedia.org/Nicole_Louise_Pearce | Purpose = Illustrate convicted offender. | Replaceability = None. | Minimality = Extra low-resolution and size, already public domain, usually without copyright citation. | Commercial = 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How nice. Since that has nothing to do with complying with NFCC#1, I'll remove it again. You also don't need a mugshot to understand that someone was arrested, so it's an obvious failure of NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have permission to use this image and it will hold online in perpetuity. Quick, proud, smarmy and mindless deletion of images serves no one. Thankfully more prudent editors ultimately prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Charming. But perpetuity apparently ran out earlier today. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sonu Tatawat

WP:UPNOT: An editor's FULL listing of social media, website and email addresses is not "standard user page of new user" as it is NOT related to Misplaced Pages. Every page I've tagged similar to that were deleted by administrators. If you disagree, feel free to comment. --Cahk (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:UPNOT does not say anything of the kind. It does, however, say that In general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-spamuser}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion.

Take special care to speak appropriately and explain the concern; many users will take it as a personal affront or attack if an unknown user announces they are going to delete a userspace image or page and an uncivil or heavy duty approach can discourage new users who are unaware of expectations and might enjoy contributing. Remember that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed.

Your failure to comply with these requirements is far more disruptive than a new editor's clumsiness, and your own userpage, festooned with crappy self-celebrating userboxes, has rather little to do with Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic goals. Pay attention to the beam in your own eye. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mohsin khan and Shivangi joshi

what is your problem huh? why are you removing the authentic information from the actor pages? if you have any problem talk to me inside of removing it. stop acting like the admin here and if u have guts reply me back which you haven't. Saad123890 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Saad123890, admin here. Please don't threaten other editors. I'm looking at your work right now. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

mohsin khan

you talk about BLP how should i post about mohsin khan age? which you remove? can i even post his real age? with a credible source? Saad123890 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights of files

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Can you please check the copyrights of this image ? Does it comply with the policy?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks generally OK to me; thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Thank a ton for your valuable reply. One last thing: Can I re-upload the deleted images with the same copyright tag as of this image, which I mentioned above?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In general, no. Copyrighted book cover images are allowed only in articles regarding the books themselves, not in the author's biography. I believe the deleted images were used only on biography pages. There was one case where I substituted a properly licensed image from an Amazon page, and if you feel strongly that the cover you photographed was a better choice, you may replace that one, which is used only in the article about the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your reply of concern. So I decide to re-upload all deleted images (now with copyrights as same as of image) but will not use it in author-biography articles. Do you agree?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to create the article (at least the basic text) about each book before you upload its cover. WP:NFCC#7 requires that nonfree images be used in at least one article, and there's an automatic process that quickly tags and removes unused nonfree images. Most (maybe all) of the upload wizards won't let you upload a nonfree image until you identify an article it's going to be used in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for the guidance. | --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary Williams copyright

Hi there. Apologies for not messaging you before. I didn't understand why a CD cover image was being removed when I get putting it back. I am still learning Misplaced Pages and I checked on the history page to see you found an issue with the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosents (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Puder image

Hello, I'm the original poster for this image File:2004-11-04-WWE-SmackDown-Tough-Enough-Daniel-Puder-Kimura-Locks-Kurt-Angle.jpg and I would like to know how to resolve this issue.

You stated that this image is a replaceable nonfree image, but this is the only known image of the event stated in the Daniel Puder article and so it is not replaceable, and I state that this image falls under fair use as for the reasons I state below:

The requirements of "don't use larger excerpts of a single work than necessary" and "don't use images of higher resolution than necessary" has been addressed, as the image is only a crop of a screenshot from a Youtube video and not the whole screenshot, the resolution of the Youtube video is low resolution and the image has been resized by a Misplaced Pages bot. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

After reading your user talk page, I've decided not to pursue this issue any longer and allow the non-free fair-use image to be deleted as per the rules of Misplaced Pages, the reason I've elected to not pursue this issue any longer is to avoid being called a blithering idiot by you as you had done to another user, I'm a very sensitive person and your attitude towards others in your user talk makes me nervous.

Please do not take this personally, I'm just a very sensitive person. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mai Lin

I saw you restored the redirect for that article. Is there a place that the longstanding consensus is documented? As a newer NPP I would love to read it/be able to reference it in the future. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

File:VITA mission logo.jpg

Hi, I see you removed this file from the article Paolo Nespoli. If I can't put it in a larger format, Is it fair use to put it as a mission logo patch in the astronaut infobox, like all other mission patches? Note that ESA allows Free usage for educational purposes, just not a total free license and that's why it cant be in commons. Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Per the WMF, noncommercial/educational-only permission is insufficient to permit use of an otherwise nonfree image. Because the subject's participation on the mission can be fullu conveyed by text alone, WP:NFCC#8 bars use of the nonfree image. The same principle has been uniformly applied to military insignia, without significant disagreement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Image copyrights

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
Would you please recommend a copyright tag for a non-free image of a person (like without applying any OTRS license as done in here).
You can check this image for example. Will a Non-free use rationale, Non-free use rationale 2 or CopyrightedFreeUse is applicable?
Thank you, --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living persons generally can't be used to illustrate their biographies, absent certain unusual circumstances (eg, prisoners serving life sentences, long-term fugitives. An active TV actor certainly doesn't fall into any of the exceptions. Wait for a free image to turn up. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Longhair\ 00:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of an admin with misplaced priorities and double standards. So it's perfectly OK with you for an editor to repeatedly post harassing messages on my talk page, violate 3RR, commit and support BLP violations, and demonstrate a substantial and sustained lack of competence. But I used the term "twit" (a term I've seen admins direct at individuals without consequence or comment. After years of enduring far worse comments than "twit", which have generally been allowed to go by without sanction or censure by our collectively feckless corps of administrators, I am hardly surprised, but it certainly supports my opinion that you are one of too, too many admins who is a net negative to the Misplaced Pages project. Keep up the bad work! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Guernica

Hello. I saw you've removed the image of Picasso's Guernica (File:PicassoGuernica.jpg) from the articles on the museum in which it is exhibited and from the Madrid page. These are surely fair uses of the image, as it defines the museum to a large extent and is one of, if not the, major tourist attractions of Madrid. I've never tried to format a fair use template, can you assist with these so the image and its caption can be returned to both pages? The painting was a "gift to the people of Spain" from Picasso, and thus should be an easy affirmative fair use question. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The nonfree image is not at all necessary to understand the fact ostensibly being illustrated. Therefore the uses fail NFCC#8. No valid use rationales can be constructed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would disagree on this point. As quoted on the NFCC page "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Many non-visual-art savvy readers who would not recognize the name of the painting would recognize the famous image, and would then realize that it is a key fixture of both the city and the museum. So, at least very arguably, valid use is clear. If you can't help with the formatting of a valid use templates, can a page lurker either assist with this or give me pointers on how to go forward? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That function is served by the link to the article on the painting itself. Your argument proves too much -- we generally can't use nonfree images of people mentioned in articles, even if their names aren't readily recognizable. Your point has been argued and rejected before. WP:FFD and WP:MCQ discussions may provide further guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Has it been argued on such a major item? A museum would be defined by its collection, and in this case Guernica is not only the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía's major attraction but may be Spain's most recognizable national treasure (hence the Madrid page use, not to mention its potential use on the 'Spain' article itself). A link to the painting's page is fine, but does not have the impact of "Look what's in this museum!" to a visual-arts-uneducated reader browsing Madrid museum pages to see what to take in on their visit. Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that Picasso gifted the painting to the people of Spain, so its fair use perimeters are arguably extended to these two pages (and even the 'Spain' page itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on remaining non-free image use

Hello, I have been working to educate myself about WP:NFCC after I saw you removed an image use from The Phenomenauts. Would you have time to give your opinion on non-free image use for the remaining two non-free images in that article? It appears you have a lot of experience in this area :)

I posted a question on the WP:MCQ here. I'm wondering if my understanding is correct. It seems like there is a stronger argument for using the remaining two non-free images, since each appears in a section about the item itself, and the section specifically explains and deals with the non-free image being depicted. Is that accurate?

I have tried to improve my understanding of appropriate non-free image use. I have re-read through WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, Arguments to avoid, this Signpost entry on reviewing non-free images, a dozen pages from the Misplaced Pages:Media_copyright_questions archive on "contextual significance", as well as your talk page here. I am working to gain a better understanding.

Thanks for your time! --Culix (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Would you please settle the image issue here.. .
Reference: Link.
Thank you, --Gpkp (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help regarding images

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You recently removed two images I had uploaded on pages of 'Ashok Malhotra' and 'Anoop Malhotra" because it seems they did not comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines. I apologize for the error. I am new to Misplaced Pages while you are an experienced editor, please could you suggest what changes are required so as to make the images acceptable if you feel they will help to improve the articles? If not we can leave it as it is. There was an older image on the former page that I removed before adding the new one, or perhaps should I replace that? In the meantime reading your comment that - 'wikipedia only' is not acceptable, I have removed that condition from the image pages. It was something additional I padded by mistake not realizing its implication. The family had given the images for use in Misplaced Pages on my request for use in these articles or where ever else that article is used but it seems they could not be bothered to release it elsewhere in public domain first. I shall await your response before doing anything or jsut leave things as they stand. Thanks. appreciate the work you do at[REDACTED] as your medals suggest. it is a useful resource for the world. Regards Shyamu111--Shyamu111 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ken McPherson

So what's wrong with http://www.ccfpa.co.uk/?p=29233? Not to mention it was asked at OTRS to be added. If you like I can ask the OP to show a death certificate - because unlike most countries, death certificates can be obtained by anyone in the UK and so are verifiable. Ronhjones 14:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I found a proper newspaper ref as well. Ronhjones 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Madrid and Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.126.210 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Your talk page edit summary gave me a lol few moments. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring Western painting

Your recent editing history at Western painting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Re: Ronald McDonald

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think you, me and Misplaced Pages in general is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laura Summer

I recently made an edit for Mark Evanier on Misplaced Pages. He also asked if the Laura Summer page you have in the draft status could be added to the mainspace. Can you help him out? Retrogamer (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lana Rhoades

Why blank it? Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Because BLP violations, such as the single unsourced sentence here, are not allowed in Misplaced Pages, regardless of namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making the article. At least give me a bit of time to add sources etc. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This bio was deleted before, and the deletion upheld at DRV. Recreating it with crap sourcing and BLP violations is not constructive editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

regarding your fresh edits

Sorry to contact you here, I wasn't much interested to add that section at all which you deleted , But as the news on the internet clearly specifies that , I added it without any interest , If you think those controversies are useful to Misplaced Pages Universe anyway else or suitable for the artist who makes that article , then , you may revert the edit , I will add source in free time ! But wait for 24 hrs before deleting them again ! Crispgatoglitz (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Crispgatoglitz: You were WP:BOLD when added that content to the article, but Misplaced Pages is not news and not everything about Fadnis needs to be added to Manjari Fadnis. Hullaballo Wolfwitz was correct in removing that unsourced content per WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES; so, if you wish to further discuss this then you should do so at Talk:Manjari Fadnis. Just start a new section and explain why you feel this content should be included. Also, it's your WP:BURDEN to add supporting citations to content when you add the content the first time or it can be removed by any any editor; this is particulary true for content about living persons seen as contentous. So, don't tell other editors to wait 24 hours before removing content; instead, you wait until you have all of the sources ready to go before adding the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Lorrie Collins.jpg

Hi HW. You've got some pretty keen spidey-sense when it comes to non-free bio images, so I'm wondering if you'd assess this file. Lorrie Collins just died, and a non-free was added for identification purposes to the article. I believe that was done in good faith, but her career did span a number of years and I'm wondering whether there might be something of her flosting around on Ebay or somewhere which didn't have it's copyright removed or might otherwise be PD for some reason. Maybe even a Flick'r image somewhere released under a CC license Misplaced Pages can accept. I've started a discussion about this on the uploader's user talk at User talk:CAWylie#File:Lorrie Collins.jpg, so perhaps you can provide some suggestions there. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you input here. The file was reuploaded to Commons under a free license, so things appear resolved. Was wondering if you'd mind helping out with an image for Benny Hill. The one currently be used has been tagged for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill.JPG. A non-free was uploaded to replace the Comomns file, but was deleted per WP:G7 after I tagged the file for rfu. I'm wondering if you can suggest any good places where another free equivalent of Hill might be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday

Despite getting blocked on your other account Hillbillyholiday and still edit warring with your pointless edits which add nothing - how are you still not getting blocked on this account? Incredible. Must be clever with your proxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingrayvibes (talk • contribs)

I note that user:Hillbillyholiday is indeed currently indeffed. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ~~And the point of your noting this fact is to assist a WP:SPA whose only edit was to cast aspersions and accuse another editor of WP:SOCK without providing any diffs or anything else in support?~~ -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC);

Marilyn Michaels

Stop your edit warring on the Marilyn Michaels article. If it is not vandalism, it is indistinguishable from it. The article is sourced with reliable third-party sources, and contains plain facts with sources, and almost no adjectives. Whether some people were once sock puppets is irrelevant. What the article looked like years ago is irrelevant. I have explained my reasons on the talk page, specifically. You have not. You have only given vague generalities, and made NO attempt to correct whatever it is that bothers you, simply blanking a performer's entire career, which is a clear violation of editing protocol. I suspect it's personal, since your actions make no sense whatsoever. You blanking the career leaves an article where a reader would have no idea why the article even exists. You have never explained your reasoning, if there is any reasoning. Carlo (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a dishonest jackass. The crapfest you have repeatedly reinstated was rejected by consensus, and you stand alone in proxying for the banned/blocked sockfarmer who wrote it. The original author has been caught in repeated lies, including the brazen falsehood that the subject or a TV show she "starred" in won an Emmy Award -- even though she didn't star in the show (and didn't even appear in more than half the episodes) and the show was only nominated for, but did not win, a technical Emmy for a single episode the subject did not appear in. (And despite its established falsity, Carlo has repeatedly restored that claim). Now stay off my talk page until you're willing to discuss matters honestly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I totally relate to what you're going through. I've had to deal with a lot of unreasonable and stupid people through all forms of Misplaced Pages (DYK, AFD, GA, and so on) who have a zero understanding of how notability and Misplaced Pages articles work and I wanted to say I'm sorry to have to deal with such terrible users. I'm on your side and I'm wishing the best of luck to ya, buddy. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dana Plato image

Hi HW. Do you think a suitable free image of Dana Plato can be found to replace the non-free screenshot currently being used in main infobox? There is actually a free image of Plato already being used in the article, so I tagged the non-free with {{rfu}}; however, it was declined because free one's quality isn't very good. So, I've started looking around on eBay, etc. for another possible free equivalent and found some, but I'm not sure how to check their respective copyright statuses. There are a couple of images which look like they might have been taken prior to 1978, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} or some other type of PD is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've become convinced that, at least for US performers active enough before the visible-copyright-notice requirement was repealed, there are almost certainly free images out there; it's just a question of digging long enough. A cursory ebay search turns up truckloads of images without notices, but not demonstrating original publication. (And an unhealthy number of them are jailbait cheesecake) But this one looks plausibly free , but needs dewatermarking, and I suspect there are more. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that bit of digging. "PD-US-no notice" seems to only be for content published prior to 1978, but the number of possibilities would greatly increase if PR shots/stills from the Diff'rent Strokes years might also be PD. As you stated, there are some "jailbait cheesecake images" out there that probably are not suitable; there might also be a mugshot photo of her from later in life which might be PD as well, but again there's WP:MUG which might deserve consideration even though she died in 1999. However, something from 1978 (when the show first aired) until 1985 when it was canceled, might be appropriate. Just curious about the one you found. Do you think the bar code at the top of back of the photo might be considered a copyright notice of some sort? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Image Removal on Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Page

Hey! Hullaballo Wolfowitz. Please explain about your edits regarding removal of the image from Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj page. The image is approved by Misplaced Pages as it is a screenshot from a webpage; here's the link for the same- https://skrm.sos.org/gallery/tw/?id=3 And if there's is a problem with it, you are very kindly requested to help and guide me on how can it be improved. --sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC, our policy regarding nonfree/copyrighted content, rather strictly prohibits the use of copyrighted images of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not present or claimed in this case. Images are presumed copyrighted unless an applicable license or release can be demonstrated, and the front page of the source website states "© 2018 Science of Spirituality. All rights reserved". No one has "approved: this image for use. If there is a suitable license on the source website, you must cite it exactly on the file page. Frankly, I doubt such a license exists, given the homepage copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your guidance, will keep this in mind.--sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop excising images with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"

You have been using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" to justify excising images for a long time. Yet, honestly is there anything in WP:NFCC, or any other policy, to justify an excision, on that justification?

Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I suggest that your general practice of simply excising images, rather than discussing what you see as questionable non-free rationales is not in the best interest of the project.

I strongly encourage you to engage with the uploader, unless they have a proven record of vandalism. We have no training manual. You risk chasing away good faith new contributors, or exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors, when you act precipitously. Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images in biographies of living people are generally prohibited, excepting some extreme circumstances, and are subject to removal. If the image is Non-free, the subject is alive, then a free image can likely be sourced or created, so the Non-free image gets removed. If you don't like this, you need to take it up with the WMF or suggest a change to the relevant policies and guidelines at the village pump, and given where the bar is set, this is unlikely to change. For a non-free image of a living person to be used, there needs to be a VALID fair use rationale. And there are almost none for living people. And while a Non-free image is being used in an article without a valid reason, there are legal concerns. Which is why they are removed until one can be provided. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to Only in death's cogent comments, except that since an infobox image is intended as a general illustration, rather than related to a specific point in the article. the possible arguments for using a nonfree image there are particularly weak. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason why a non-free image shouldn't be used, then using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" instead of that reason is a very very bad idea. If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason, then use that as your edit summary. Making it hard for a good faith uploader to understand why you think their upload was a mistake is a time-wasting act of incivility. Please also bear in mind that, like the rest of us, you too are subject to normal human fallibility. You could be the one whose judgement is off. I think you were dead wrong to be so dogged in your attempts to remove the image of Florin Fodor. And I think you were making a big mistake to justify your excision because the image was in an infobox. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting tendentious nonsense on my talk page is a very very very very bad idea. I have been using the same basic edit summary for years, hundreds upon hundreds of times (actually more than 1500 times). You appear to be the only editor who objects to it. You are very very likely to be the one whose judgement is off. I strongly suggest you heed your own warning about exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in times like these that I believe you should reference my essay on teachable moments User:Geo_Swan/opinions/Teachable_moments.142.158.153.179 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to work out an image for a lede

I took your : as hint and am trying to work out an image for a lede (I didn't even notice the : and assumed I had inserted it during one of my edits, just kept on going with the talk page discussion). We need that image on the talk page for the moment. It is context during the discussion, right now.

Can you please hold off on the big hammer until I can get consensus on another lede image. After the outcome you are free to work your will, but please.

Welcome back, anyways. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Does this image's license suitable for that of a living person category?
Thank you, --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The license does not appear to be valid. The source website (URL misspelled on the file page, BTW) carries a standard copyright notice both on its front page and on its photo gallery page. You need to provide a link to the exact page where the photo is licensed. Otherwise, the rights owner should provide a license via the WP:OTRS process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 03:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.........Just...

.....passing...........through..... Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't remove the photo unless you have one to replace it with. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Frank Donga

Hello The image on the article "Frank Donga" was uploaded on the claim of Fair Use, which is acceptable. You deleted it for the reason "nonfree image in BLP infobox" I would revert your change pending an explanation to this cause Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pst. Bukkie (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI and point 1 of WP:NFCC - where the subject is still alive (with very very few exceptions) a non-free picture is not allowed on a biography of a living person, as a free picture can be sourced. Misplaced Pages applies a stricter standard than normal fair use allows. The key part of NFCC is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - for living people, it has been determined that photos of subjects who are still alive and not under extreme conditions (long term incarceration, dictators of north korea etc) a free photo could be created. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pst. Bukkie. A non-free image of Donga cannot be used per Misplaced Pages non-free content use criterion #1 for the reasons given above by Only in death does duty end; so, I have tagged this file for deletion per WP:F7. Moreover, it appears that this is a reupload of a previously deleted file of the same name (see User talk:Pst. Bukkie#Replaceable fair use File:Frank Donga.jpg) which was deleted for the same reason back in April by an administrator named Explicit.When you find out that a file you uploaded has been deleted it can be a bit of a shock, especially if you're not sure exactly why. If a file you've upload has been deleted, it's always best to assume there was a reason for it; so, click on the file's link (it will be a red link) and try and see why. If you still are n't sure, then the file's page will show the name of the administrator who deleted it and it's perfectly OK to ask that person or someone else (perhaps at the Misplaced Pages:Teahouse or Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions) to explain why. Pretty much worst thing you can do, however, is simply reupload the same file (or a similar file) which has the same problem or problems. Not only will this surely result in the re-deletion of the new version, but it will also give others the impression that you're not interested in complying with relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If you repeat this type of things too many times, an adminstrator is likely going to see it as being disruptive and may take further action to prevent you from doing it anymore. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"nonfree image in BLP infobox"

why did you revert my edit with such a vague summary? editing[REDACTED] should be a learning experience. this isn't elementary school where you're just told "you're wrong".

after rereading the policy based on your second revert, I get why the picture has no place in the article. but that wasn't apparent to me on my first read, and it certainly wasn't "obvious". I should not have to persist to find out what I did wrong. —mountainhead / ? 19:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

and in scrolling back just a few sections, I found that I'm not the first editor to be bothered by this. —mountainhead / ? 19:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Book cover image in co-author's wiki article

See Dominik Bartmanski. Also, there's a notice of an upcoming 2019 co-authored book cited only to the publisher's blurb. Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

wp:3RR November 2018

Hello, you are in violation of the wp:3RR rule on both Siouxsie Sioux and the file "Siouxsie-Creaturescolor", you did 5 reverts, each time. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Woovee (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That's nuttin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz once did 127 reverts in seven minutes in an edit war that several battalions of us were having at Poppy. Ten administrators tried to stop us, but got caught up in friendly fire (and that's why Misplaced Pages is low on active admins to this day. true story). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg has been deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1 per WP:F7: so, it appears that at least one administrator agrees with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment of the file. Just because a non-free has been used in an article for a long-time doesn't mean that it's non-free use automatically complies with (or in this case complied with) Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy; it could also just as easily mean that file should have been deleted/removed a long time ago but nobody experienced with Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy noticed until now.Finally, I'm not sure what anything at Poppy (singer) has to do with this particular image, and it seems you are just using this as an opportunity to pile on and perhaps rekindle an old dispute. Moreover, it doesn't look as if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article a single time and there's nothing about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doing some major edit warring on Talk:Poppy (singer); so, maybe you're thinking of another editor or another article. Anyway, you might want to clarify this at AN3 since your post is being cited as evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit warring (or at least his alleged history of edit warring). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is? I'll have a look. It was friendly satire, do you really think he reverted 127 reverts in seven minutes? We've kidded each other in the past, or maybe in the present or the future. One of those. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Image of multiple book covers

Can you assess File:HenryGordonBooks001.jpg and also its use in the author's article? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That's a Commons file, so there's not much that can be done here; however, it appears to be an obvious derivative work which means that not only the copyright of the photo but also the book covers themselves need to be taken into account. The uploader can claim the photo as "own work" and release it under a free license if they choose to do so, but they can claim copyright ownership over the book covers if they aren't the copyright holder of them. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion; if you'd rather do a c:COM:DR instead, then feel free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed the image since the violation is indisputable, and suggested an alternative approach. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico release delays

These unfounded accusations made by Lou Reed and Sterling Morrison against Frank Zappa have been published in several sources and the source specifically states that no evidence has been proven that Zappa did, in fact, intend to delay the release of the banana album, so that he could release Freak Out! first. 1.129.105.236 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you please elucidate the rationale behind your today's edits, as to Robert Silverberg stuff? FWIW, the discussion was closed, in favor of the merge.Apologies, if I am missing something obvious.Thanks,∯WBG 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please show the courtesy and civility required to let people finish working before officiously demanding that other editors justify their editing. A non-admin close of a discussion that's been moribund for nearly a year and a half, based on a vote count rather than weighing arguments, several of which were defective on their face, is not exactly routine, is at best questionable -- especially when the product contains obvious policy violations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alpha 2 (Robert Silverberg anthology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faith of Our Fathers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Shut Up And Eat Your Snowshoes, Geo

Geo Swan believes he is the Edit Summary Sherriff of Misplaced Pages, and has repeatedly complained about an edit summary that I have used over 1500 times, and that no other had objected to. The whole matter was discussed at some length above, and nobody else supported Geo's position. Nevertheless, Geo brings it up incessantly, here and elsewhere. It's very hard to take Geo seriously, because in the underlying content disputes he has made multiple reversions and changes without any edit summary at all. Geo's tendentious behaviour is most uncivil, even if he avoids using magic words. I will no longer respond to his repetitive nonsense here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When you removed File:Ali_Musa_DaqDuq's_forged_ID_documents.jpg did you not notice this note? Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once again, I encourage you, in the very strongest possible terms, to comply with the policies and conventions that require you to be polite. Surely you know you are not entitled to use insulting edit summaries, like the one you used in this recent edit? "Stop purposefully playing stupid, Geo Swan. That discussion was over whether the image could be transferred to Commons as free or kept locally as nonfree, It in no way supports using the image in an article without a valid nonfree use rationale, since removal is called for by WP:NFCCE." Similarly, in this edit you characterized my motives as a "spiteful rejection" of consensus. I know you have got to know this kind of language is not acceptable here. You are not a genius, who is not obliged to answer questions, and explain what they think they are doing. Neither am I. Even Jimbo Wales can't expect that he won't be asked to explain himself. I know I have asked you to consider the points I made in Are you a genius many times. I ask you to consider those points, again. I took a look at your last 500 edit summaries. About ten percent of your recent edits have removed nonfree images with an edit summary stating you were doing so because a nonfree image was included in the article's infobox. I failed to find any wikidocument stating nonfree images can't be used in infoboxes. I think I told you this. I don't think you ever explained why your edit summaries contained this claim. Hullaballow Wolfowitz, I have got to be frank here. You make enough assertions that you excised images because they were "obvious" violations of NFCC, where your gut feeling proved wrong, that you should no longer excise images based on your gut feeling. Your gut feelings are not sufficiently reliable. If you placed speedy tags on nonfree images, (1) another set of eyes, that of the closing administrator, would look at your concern; (2) the individual who uploaded the image would get a clear indication of where they were going wrong, if the closing administrator backs up your concern; and (3) if you are the one who is off-base, you get a clear indication of where you went wrong. I strongly encourage you to stop simply excising nonfree images. Images you excise are deleted after seven days. Images you tag with a speedy will be deleted after seven days -- if the closing administrator backs you up. So there is no speed advantage to excision. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When you removed File:Ali_Musa_DaqDuq's_forged_ID_documents.jpg did you not notice this note? Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once again, I encourage you, in the very strongest possible terms, to comply with the policies and conventions that require you to be polite.

Surely you know you are not entitled to use insulting edit summaries, like the one you used in this recent edit? "Stop purposefully playing stupid, Geo Swan. That discussion was over whether the image could be transferred to Commons as free or kept locally as nonfree, It in no way supports using the image in an article without a valid nonfree use rationale, since removal is called for by WP:NFCCE."

Similarly, in this edit you characterized my motives as a "spiteful rejection" of consensus. I know you have got to know this kind of language is not acceptable here.

You are not a genius, who is not obliged to answer questions, and explain what they think they are doing. Neither am I. Even Jimbo Wales can't expect that he won't be asked to explain himself. I know I have asked you to consider the points I made in Are you a genius many times. I ask you to consider those points, again.

I took a look at your last 500 edit summaries. About ten percent of your recent edits have removed nonfree images with an edit summary stating you were doing so because a nonfree image was included in the article's infobox. I failed to find any wikidocument stating nonfree images can't be used in infoboxes. I think I told you this. I don't think you ever explained why your edit summaries contained this claim.

Hullaballow Wolfowitz, I have got to be frank here. You make enough assertions that you excised images because they were "obvious" violations of NFCC, where your gut feeling proved wrong, that you should no longer excise images based on your gut feeling. Your gut feelings are not sufficiently reliable.

If you placed speedy tags on nonfree images, (1) another set of eyes, that of the closing administrator, would look at your concern; (2) the individual who uploaded the image would get a clear indication of where they were going wrong, if the closing administrator backs up your concern; and (3) if you are the one who is off-base, you get a clear indication of where you went wrong.

I strongly encourage you to stop simply excising nonfree images. Images you excise are deleted after seven days. Images you tag with a speedy will be deleted after seven days -- if the closing administrator backs you up. So there is no speed advantage to excision. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Brad v🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Chrismouse:)

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hope you have a great festive season. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Honolulu Star Newspaper photo

I didn't notice two things, first, that there have been some changes to the deletion guidelines (I am reviewing them) and second was your edit summary after my first revert referring specifically to NFCC#2. I will look into both as well as your other concerns before making any further reverts.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article to address your concerns regarding what you believed were unattributed quotes. They were actually attributed to a newspaper article but that link expired and I have found the current link to that article as well as adding additional book sourcing to the contentious claim made about a living person.

The image itself is mentioned in the article in detail, not just about what the image depicts. A similar image by a different author/photographer had been uploaded by other users previously with, as you state, spurious rational but for a different article and a different rational. That image does have a true market value that Ed Greevy holds for Native Hawaiian activism and his images are regularly used in that market through specific books about the Hawaiian culture and contemporary Hawaiian activism. He is well known for that and is easily demonstrated. This image is from a newspaper which has published this image in multiple book publications ranging from geography to history. Its use falls within Non Free Content Criteria.

I am going to be re-adding the image shortly after I finish completing my comments on the article talk page to address your concerns and attempting to strengthen the rational however, since you might still not agree, please do not delete but nominate for deletion discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a specific page to nominate non free images for deletion. That no longer seems to be the case. Controversial deletion discussions for non free images now seem to be made at: Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion now.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry for all the posts), I believe that this image does not fit criteria for speedy deletion and I have made an honest attempt in good faith to comply to our policies and guidelines as well as you concerns. I believe you are also working in good faith so I ask that after I add the image back, if you still disagree and believe it is not to non free content criteria, ~~that we take a formal nomination discussion route~~ That we discuss it together at the talk page between the two of us..(perhaps either of us can convince the other. If not, then perhaps we need a more formal discussion). Thanks you!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I got sick and was unable to return to this. Since I did not return the image to the article it has been deleted as orphaned. I see no major reason to attempt to return it after deletion, at least not in the near future.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Giant Snowman 14:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"treated like dirt"

I just blocked a vandal who used that catchphrase of yours in article space and edit summaries. I scrubbed most of it because I consider that a kind of harassment (impersonating/implicating you). zzuuzz, should I scrub it from their own talk page too? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: 300Kb of anything repetitive is fairly disruptive, but I'm not bothered either way at this time. I see there's already a little note on Ponyo's talk page. That LTA by the way, if it's the same, would be this one. -- zzuuzz 17:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh my--another prince of humanity. I was trying to compare but the last one was from 2016. Davey2010, you may have an interest in this. zzuuzz, it was pointed out to me that recently retired User:Flooded them with hundreds was also borrowing HW's signature. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Doc, Looking at Ponyos talkpage I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed! ....., Never heard of The Suix or their socks but as I say given the sigs and timing it has to be more than a mere coincidence. –Davey2010 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The two being just days apart certainty sounds fishy to me. Glad that others have also taken note of this. funplussmart (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is triggering me. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, after having read the ANI comments and a bunch of other stuff, I'm thinking that it's most likely one of those trolls who keep a close eye on our community in order to exploit our weak spots and stir the shit pot. One of those a-holes like Vote X or whatever--trolling impersonators using proxies and playing us. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm staring to think so too. funplussmart (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rodney On the ROQ Vol III featuring Olivia Barash.jpg

The image in question belongs on at least two of the three pages. Please take it to a discussion before unilaterally trying to have it deleted. Thanks. --evrik 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a better idea. You should review WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, and WP:ROLLBACK and stop committing obvious violations of the governing policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop driving edit wars on multiple articles. --evrik 03:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Major Emmerdale storylines image removal

Please explain your rationale behind the image removals before I revert your edits. The images, as I see, have usage rationales (albeit all non-free, as television screenshots), and mostly been in use for 10+ years. Can you offer a fair explanation so that either alternatives can be sourced, or the originals restored? Thanks. Bungle 18:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated clearly in my edit summaries: first, the uses fails NFCC#8, because the storyline information can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and because the use rationales are generic and invalid -- conspicuously so; consider the "Tom King" image, which is justified by "It's handy to have an image to add to a description of the article", a rationale with no basis in NFC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing about a soap opera, or indeed any television programme, is that the viewer (as opposed to reader) understands the nature of the scenerio by watching the events, as opposed to reading them. NFC#8 does state that the images should be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", which given the text is describing events that occured relevant to the visual imagery, I personally feel would satisfy the criterion. I take your point about some of the image rationales being less than ideal, but perhaps it would be appropriate to correct these, than to simply obliterate any imagery. I take your view to a certain extent, but can't fully get on board with the conclusion you reached. If you're firm in your view, perhaps it could be passed through RFC (if anything, to ensure that other editors can see consensus one way or the other)? Bungle 19:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed quite a few such images from other articles uncontroversially. I see no reason for me to "correct" defective use rationales when I believe the uses do not conform to NFC policy. If you are determined to contest the removal, I suggest you follow the standard process and take the matter to WP:FFD, but I suggest you first review similar past discussions there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I am "determined to contest", but do have reservations about the removal of every image, based on your own opinion of policy, without a discussion taking place. Frankly, I am not expressing concern pertaining to "other articles", particularly if I am unaware of what they are (and it would be an excessive use of time to invest in querying any others you have applied such logic to). FFD does state: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised." Based on this, my understanding (which may be incorrect, as I have not been previously involved with FFD), would be for the concerned party to list the images for discussion, then act upon whatever decision is reached. I take the view this may be the least controversial approach, particularly as it would allow for a reference point if future edits restore the images against consensus. I don't feel strongly enough that I would contest any potential consensus for removal of all images, but feel given the quantity (and in article percentage terms, 100%), it should at least have some discussion. Bungle 19:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Note that even before I responded to this complaint, it resulted in the OP being blocked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg

Hi, I ended up on in essence undoing your last edit on Guillaume Morissette. Non-free should be no problem for a book cover with a fair use rationale explicitly mentioning the target page and the purpose (book cover); I've seen similar fair use rationales on lots of books and albums. BLP + book in one article is slightly odd, but even together it's barely enough for a stub at the moment, splitting the page is no option.
Just revert me if you have a reason for it, I only saw the "non-free orphaned file deletion warning" on the talk page of the uploader, because I edited this talk page for an unrelated reason, and considered the issue as a "low-hanging fruit" (unused => used, all is well if it ends well). –84.46.53.71 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Remotely related (from my point of view), if there's a general problem with nothingmajor.com not limited to Sasha Grey, this site is used as reference on two other pages. –84.46.52.31 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion#File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg. –84.46.52.203 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life section of Ireland Baldwin's article

Hi,

I'd like to discuss the removal of the personal life section of Baldwin's page. I think that it just needs some tweaking to show the significance to Baldwin's life and career. for the time being I have removed that section until a resolution could be reached.

Thanks for your time, Bunnies959 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)bunnies959

Orphaned non-free image File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Jussie Smollett image

Hi Hullaballo Wolfwitz. I think this was a good catch on your part since it not only has NFCC issues, but also WP:MUG issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The file was re-added, but I've removed it again and prodded it for deletion. If it's re-added again and deprodded, then it's probably best to start a discussion about it at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Recently you have removed File: Minoo Mumtaz..jpg and Karnail Rana.jpg from their respective pages. Sir as there is no other free image available in both cases as of now, I have added them. These images also qualify in fair image criterion of Misplaced Pages. Regards. Vrishchik (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not add these images back. One has already been deleted for noncompliance with WP:NFCC policy. Absent special circumstances not even claimed here, nonfree (fair use) images may not be used to illustrate the person's biography. This holds even if a free image has not been currently located. Read WP:NFCC amd WP:NFC for more detailed explanations. The governing principles were established by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may not be weakened by user consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive images found on Giant Killers (EP)

I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on Giant Killers (EP). Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. Mburrell (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed the alternative covers, since the use rational for each says that the cover will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question"; that is plainly not the case, and no alternative rationale has been provided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of context along with unfree images

This is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.

In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought the lengthy quote already in the article was sufficient, and felt that the text highlighted by the caption really added nothing substantial to the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Need some help tracking down a ref

Back when Margo Feiden wasn't yet an article, you remarked on the AfC that

The NYTimes reported on March 11, 1961 that a teenage theater troupe led by Feiden was trying to raise $600 to stage its production of "Peter Pan" in an Off-Broadway house. Not exactly Broadway money, even for 1961. (The theatre involved apparently allowed its premises to be used for children/youth theater productions as Sunday matinees.)

If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that would be *awesome*. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear God, is Feiden back again? She's so shamelessly self-promotional you'd think she was part of the Trump or Kardashian families. Here's the link

https://www.nytimes.com/1961/03/11/archives/teenage-troupe-trying-peter-pan-for-off-broadway.html?searchResultPosition=1

The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That article seems to be behind a paywall - all I can see is a single paragraph:

A troupe of hopefuls has been rehearsing scenes from "Peter Pan" in basements in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. The most hopeful of all the members of the group, the Fine Arts Theatre Workshop, is its director, Miss Margo Eden.

Are there more details? Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Pretty sure that File:Margo Feiden.jpg is a copyvio and have tagged it as such. As for possible COI issues, if there's a connection between Factor-ies and Margo Feiden (apparently there is per Factor-ies user page), then add {{COI edit notice}} and {{Connected contributor}} to the article's talk page and advise them not to directly edit the article except per WP:COIADVICE. If they have any problems with doing this, then bring it up for discussion at WP:COIN. If there's a strong suspicion that Factor-ies is Feiden herself (apparently there are concerns about this per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries), then advise "her" about WP:BLPCOMPLAIN. If "she" still is not willing to abide by relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe this should be discussed as ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Miss Feiden is very open about the fact that she & Factor-ies are one and the same. The account is signing its posts here on WP (including on my user talk) as "Margo Feiden". Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If that’s the case, then a {{Connected contributor}} template should be added to the BLP article’s talk page as well as any others directly related to her. A {{uw-coi}} template could be added to her user talk page as well, but a more personal note might work better if you’ve been previously engaging her on various talk pages. Basically, she should be following WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and avoid directly editing the article. If she’s unwilling to do that, then she’s going to eventually end up at WP:ANI for WP:NOTHERE. In addition, if she’s been always signing as Feiden, then she should be made aware of WP:REALNAME. If she emails WP:Contact OTRS and has OTRS verify her identity per {{OTRS verified}}, others will know for sure (or at least as best as possible) that she’s not just someone claiming to be Feiden; otherwise, she may be risking being WP:SOFTBLOCKED for impersonation. WP:BLP applies to all Misplaced Pages pages and all living persons; so, claiming to be a specific identifiable person in your posts when you really aren’t (particularly someone with a Misplaced Pages article written about them) seems just as bad as actually using the other person’s real name as your username. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of cast photos

I see you have removed images of TV show cast from Empty Nest and EastEnders. Is WP:NFCC#8 sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect open content to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- George Ho (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the Empty Nest photos, they were used simply to illustrate a list of cast members, devoid of any substantive commentary. The same function could be served (perhaps better served) by a gallery of free head shots. For Eastenders, we were dealing with a gallery of nonfree group shots, without specific sourced commentary for each image. Worse, the casts were so large that the small images were not very communicative. Even the single image that remains is probably more decorative than communicative. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Re-reading WP:NFCC, how do you think removing the cast photos would not impact readers' understanding about the show? I.e. readers curious about the appearances of the cast while learning about TV shows, like Empty Nest. Can Misplaced Pages content adequately teach readers about TV shows without the cast photos? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:NFC#CS says that "contextual significance" is subjective and varies, even with two common circumstances. George Ho (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I spotchecked articles on about a dozen similar TV shows of the same vintage, and about 80% did not use cast photos at all. Consensus practice appears to run against your position, which you don't provide any positive evidence in favor of. Major films like Chicago, Midnight Cowboy, No Country for Old Men, and West Side Story similarly stand without nonfree cast photos. If you're going to challenger an established pattern and practice like this, you badly need to provide policy-grounded arguments that would directly support your position, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Euro Shopper feautured line of products.jpg

Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive visual branding and range of products they typically carry? Cheers daylon124 (talk)

The use rationale states that the image is being used to support textual discussion of the "line of products". There is no such text in the article. Also, the promotional nonfree image could be replaced with a free(r), user-created image showing examples of the product line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg

Regarding this, I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is WP:Notable. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in this case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with this edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another WP:Files for discussion if you want it deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Change UK

I did not make a nonconstructive removal of sourced claim to the above article. I made a minor grammar edit (removing an unnecessary comma). Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Seems like your edit was caught up in the revert of another edit; notice how in Hullaballoo's edit summary it says "Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually it says: Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and Denisarona to revision 897786156 by JDuggan101: nonconstructive removal of sourced claim. Denisarona (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Page blanking

Hi, I have reverted your edits on Gia Darling, Francesca Le, Cash Markman, Tim Von Swine, Tiffany Clark and Deidre Holland, Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. --John B123 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John B123 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Flickr image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
I recently uploaded few pics from Flickr to Commons. Majority of images are those of copyrights: Attribution-ShareAlike. Would you plz clarify on a doubt of mine, that if the author (in Flickr) ever if changes the copyright of those images to something: Not OK to Commons like Attribution-NoDerivs, will the bot (like FlickreviewR 2) immediatley considers it as Not OK and so eligible for deletion? --Gpkp (u • t • c) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the details of the relevant bot's operation, but I believe it only checks the status of an image once. Releasing an image under a free license is generally irrevocable; rights validly given to the public can't be taken back later. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your edit summary citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rafat Albadr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Physical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

you wrote	notes
It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot;	Wrong. He saw a video made by someone playing the game; he took a screenshot; and he tweeted a request for the actual game.
if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it.	About 3/4 of the way down the CBC article is a copy of his tweet. The comment above the image says "Where can I get the Brussels airport MOD on call of duty?:" Where did he snap the screenshot? I am sorry you didn't bother to read my comment, where I linked to a YouTube video made by someone playing that version of the game. That video is 294 seconds long. The screenshot used to illustrate no russian was snapped at 24 seconds, when the shooters have fired just a few rounds. The screenshot Mohammed snapped was at about 26 seconds, after the five shooters have been blasting the crowd for just two second - still long enough to have fired hundreds of rounds into the several dozen people you can see in a pile of dead and wounded.
There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent.	might be time for some new spectacles.
(it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale)	The video portion of this global news article (at about 26 seconds) explicitly refers to the image he snapped as a "massacre": "According to RCMP testimony, this image, a massacre, from a graphic video game, is what Mohammed posted online the same day he was arrested." An RS referred to the image showing a "massacre". I suggest anyone who gave this issue fair consideration would agree we can refer to this as a violent image from a violent video game.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Much like your complaint about edit notes as a form of discussion, your taking a discussion about an article and moving it to the user talk page of one single participant also makes it difficult to determine how events unfolded for the rest of us... -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ferret, I've crossed paths with Hullaballoo multiple times, over multiple years. My conclusions are:

Hullaballoo is genuinely well-intentioned, is genuinely convinced that his or her edits will improve the wikipedia;
I am convinced Hullaballoo's comments that suggest he or she feels like a victim are sincere, and that they do feel like a victim, more of a victim than the people, like me, to whom they have a history of being abrasive.
I believe Hullaballoo is genuinely unaware of how abrasive they can be.
In my opinion Hullaballoo manifests a terrible failing, one which is unfortunately much more common among[REDACTED] contributors than it should be. Hullaballoo seems to have a terrible problem considering the possibility that people who disagree with them may be making valid points.
I don't want to win every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the project.

Yes, I could have left the comment above at Talk:Kevin_Omar_Mohammed. It was a judgement call. Knowing how prickly Hullaballoo has shown themselves to be I thought these comments would be more likely to be effective if left at the slightly more private venue of User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
What makes me think Hullaballoo can't acknowledge mistakes? Well, his or her behavior at Florin Fodor, for one. I uploaded File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg in 2008. Hullaballoo excised that image in 2017, with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"'.
Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.
A year later Hullaballoo excised the image, again. This time their edit summary was "nonfree lede image in BLP".
I applaud administrator Ronhjones closing comment at File talk:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits.
Hullaballoo relies on gut instincts and snap judgements. I genuinely think they should wise up and acknowledge they too are subject to normal human fallibility. In particular they failed in their excisions at Florin Fodor. They failed to use good judgment in failing to recognize an historic and non-reproducable image. They failed by offering confusing non-policy excision justifications in their edit summary. And, in my opinion, they failed by not publicly offering recognition that they got this one wrong, after the closure. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in an ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Natlalya Murashkevich

Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Misplaced Pages uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Sp00n exe. Each Misplaced Pages project has its own policies and guidelines determined by its respective community; there might be some similarities and overlap, but there also might be some big differences. I'm not sure what Russian Misplaced Pages's policy on non-free content use it, but English Misplaced Pages's is quite restrictive, even more restrictive than US copyright law in some ways. That's the policy which matters when it comes to non-free files being used on English Misplaced Pages. Generally, as explained in WP:FREER, non-free images of still living persons are not going to be allowed per non-free content use criterion #1; there might be some exceptions to this as explained in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but these are exceptions not the rule. A free equivalent of a non-free file does not have to currently exist, there only has to be a reasonable expectation that it can be found or created. It doesn't have to be created or found by you, it can be anyone, and it doesn't have to be created or found by any particular date. Moreover, a free equivalent doesn't even have to be a free version of the exact same file, it can be a different file and only has to be sufficient enough to provide the same basic encyclopedic information and serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose. The file you were trying to use (File:Natalya Murashkevich.jpg) was removed by Hullaballo Wolfowitz, but it was actually deleted by an administrator named Explicit per WP:F7; it's important to note that the deletion was per WP:F7, not WP:F5. Explicit is quite experienced in dealing with non-free files and wouldn't have deleted the file for F7 reasons if he disagreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment. If you feel that there are special considerations which should've been taken into account, the best thing to do would be to discuss them with Explicit on his user talk page; perhaps, your arguments will be persuasive enough to get Explicit to restore the file for further discussion. There's really not anything more that Hullaballo Wolfowitz can do here since he cannot restore a deleted file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Misplaced Pages:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#This just in... spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Dresel image

Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the Bernie Dresel page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Misplaced Pages (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.

Thanks for your help! Shelyric (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Only the copyright holder may license an image. Since you are not the copyright holder, you need to either 1) show that the image was published elsewhere, under the authority of the copyright holder, with an appropriate free license; or 2) provide proof of the licensing to WP:OTRS. Misplaced Pages-limited permission is not sufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Objection

I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of Sarah Hoyt, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And I would appreciate a hot night of passion with the young Diana Rigg. But it ain't gonna happen.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hoyt

As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But you can't on your own close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What I see from your edit summary is that you're just another fucking abusive admin who refuses to follow or to cite governing policy and insisting that his little tin admin badge allows him to the rest of us animals who are less equal than others. Well, your behaviour here demonstrates why you're not worthy of respect. You don't even pretend to argue with my carefully stated, policy-based justification for my actions. I've been told, and accepted, that disputable, good faith NAC closures should be taken to DRV or, in worst cases, to AN/I, not unilaterally reversed. You don't dispute that this was a good faith closure with a policy basis. Why the fuck do you think that you don't have to follow generally applicable policies? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Can I say what I see? At first glance your NAC seems to have some merit, though your response to Bbb was of course rude and unnecessary. But then again, if you look closely, it all falls apart. The first PROD was applied by someone with one single edit, sure--so they're automatically an SPA, but there is no proof of socking, none whatsoever. The AfD's intentions are hard to figure out, and your easy answers lack proof--plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated. You didn't know that, but you're jumping to conclusions. Now, if your suppositions had been either proven correct or were reasonable and supported by evidence, you would have been correct in closing it, but neither is the case yet. To make a long story short, you are the one not following applicable policy, given WP:NACPIT item 1, which also points at the "understanding that the closure may be reversed". Which is what happened. And Bbb's is correct to point out that a comment at the AfD and maybe a ANI would have been the right thing to do. Instead, you're insulting him, treating him, yes, like dirt. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

yep, accept that they can be reversed but assume (maybe i shouldn't:)) that it should be reversed based on the rest of no. 1 ie. "The nominated item is a controversial topic, or the discussion is controversial.", nope, "That the item meets appropriate closure is a close call", none of the 6 editors involved in the discussion up to that point suggested other than "keep", and didn't "just vote" but explained why Hoyt is notable, so to me looked like an appropriate early close (i do acknowledge that Hull's edit comments may have been inappropriate/incorrect but that doesn't mean that their early close was also incorrect). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The Unknown Comic.jpg

Hi HW. I'm wondering what you think about this file's non-free use. The person behind the bag (so to speak) is still living so may be it's possible that he's still performing as the unknown comic which makes a non-free not really acceptable per WP:FREER. At the same time, this might be considered one of the exemptions to NFCC#1 mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI since it seems his appearance played a big role in his popularity (even though it's just a paper bag). Given the Unknown Comic seemed to reach his peak of popularity in the early to mid 1970s, there might also be a free publicity photo floating around out there that might be OK as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Lots of files show up in a Google Image search (mostly screenshots), but I'm not sure where else to check. Any ideas? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that "The Unknown Comic" is a fictional character, while the article is a BLP of Murray Langston, the performer who sometimes performed as that character. A nonfree image of an actor playing a character generally isn't allowed in the performer's BLP. The uploader's use rationale is also patently invalid. So the image really ought to go, as things stand now. I also agree that there are likely to be free, no-notice publicity shots available -- in fact, this image might well be such an image. It's certainly a publicity shot, and if the date for a promo piece like this could be established, it would likely be free. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your point about the image being of a fictional character is a good one that I didn't consider. I guess it would be better for the infobox image to be of Langston sans the paper bag per WP:FREER with perhaps the character image being used in the body of the article. Do you think the page should be moved to Murray Langston though Tiny Tim (musician) is a similar type of article? As for the date of the photo you found, I did find this. According to that website The Unknown Comic performed at World's of Fun on July 16, 1980 and Conway Twitty performed on July 19 & 20, 1980. If that's accurate, then I don't think {{PD-US-no notice}} would work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Gossip related.

Is this part also need to be removed? Sources, a Radio station website.

"Cabello started dating English dating coach Matthew Hussey in February 2018"

https://en.wikipedia.org/Camila_Cabello EditorsHelp101 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably, but even more important, the specific claim isn't supported by the reference. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Amanda Cerny

One user has messed up redirection for the page Amanda Cerny. As you have worked on that page previously, can you take a look? Thanks 106.51.132.220 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Photo of Earl Chudoff

The photograph of Congressman Chudoff that I added to the List of Jewish Members of the United States Congress article is the one included in his Misplaced Pages article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": https://en.wikipedia.org/Earl_Chudoff#/media/File:Earl_Chudoff_PA_Legislature_Pic.jpeg. Do you have additional information that belies what is claimed in the Earl Chudoff article? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFLIST. Also note that a separate, valid nonfree use rationale is required for each article in which a nonfree image appears, and since you did not provide one the image was subject to summary removal. Use of a nonfree image in one article does not alone justify its use in any other article.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Scott Williams (artist)

Hello

You seem to have removed images that I posted for the Scott Williams article. Some were taken by me, showing the artist's work, whcich I had permission to show. How can I get these pictures back? I had permissions, and hold the copyright on some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Williams_(artist)

Wikpedia is dedicated to using free media, rather than non-free. See WP:NFCC. So, even if you had permission to show his work, held copyright on the photos, it would likely be removed under the NFCC policy, as it still wouldnt comply with our 'free' requirements, which are stricter than eg US Fair Use allows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd add simply that in a short biography like this, without any sourced commentary regarding the artist's work, a single example is generally sufficient; five examples was clear an excessive number. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Pritchard

Please explain how NPOV issues are caused by stating voting record on human rights in the same manner as voting record on animal welfare is stated.Dftm86 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Because the concept of "human rights" is not clearly defined and what may qualify as "human rights" is often controversial. The precise issues involved should be identified with more particularity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

AAGPBL photos

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do you think there's a chance that File:1943-First Four AAGPBL.gif and File:AAGPBL Victory Song.jpg are possibly {{PD-US-no notice}}? If or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If not, then neither file's non-free use seems NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that they're both copyright-nonrenewed, but without better sourcing we'll never be able to show it. I also not that the credit in the "First Four" caption doesn't appear consistent with the sourcing on the file page, but a quick online search for the "Northern Indiana Center for History" wasn't very helpful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I didn't notice the discrepancy between caption and source; so, nice catch. I ask about these at MCQ to see if perhaps someone can track down their original source since it seems unlikely to be that website. Perhaps if the original source can be found, then perhaps their possible PD status can be clarified; otherwise, I don't think these can be kept per NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはHullaballoo Wolfowitzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment here. It inspired me to make this comment. I did ping you, but I don't think the ping worked (as the software doesn't like pings added to already signed sections), so leaving you this note instead. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Nonfree image in BLP info box

Hi there, I am trying my best to learn all the ins and outs of non-free images so hopefully you can give me some input? So looking at your comments it appears that I've overstepped some non-free image rules by putting a picture of the mask they wear in the info box. Is there a specific guideline on what can/cannot go in the info box? and follow up, if the image is not placed in the info box but possibly used in the article itself could that possibly be allowed? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

CGP Grey stick figure.png

Hi. You removed the image File:CGP Grey stick figure.png from CGP Grey with the message "disputed nonfree uses should be removed pending resolution of the dispute, and no one denies that this use violates NFCC#1". However, there is a discussion at Talk:CGP Grey#Image where everyone besides yourself HAS denied that the image violates NFCC. Because you stopped responding on the talk page, the dispute is essentially resolved in favor of keeping the image. You may continue to make your case and keep the discussion going on the talk page, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus (that the image is acceptable) will stand per WP:BRD. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@IagoQnsi: You shouldn't really remove speedy deletion templates from file's you've uploaded. You can contest the template by adding {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} and then by explaining why on the file's talk page. The admin who review the speedy deletion tag will see what you post and may then decide that further discussion is needed at WP:FFD. You can also start a discussion at FFD yourself if you want. The consensus established on the file's talk page is a local consensus that cannot override policy like WP:NFCC or a community consensus established at FFD; so, FFD is probably going to ultimately be were things need to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I don't think an admin is going to delete this per WP:F7 since there appears to be quite a bit of disagreement as to whether this violates FREER being made on the article's talk page. I think that this is likely going to end up at FFD one way or another; so, probably the image should be left alone at least to an admin reviews the speedy deletion template you added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly - I believe the talk page discussion (and some of the discussion here) conflates two issues. Whether to include a photograph of the article subject, when a free image that can properly identify the article subject, is a matter of editorial discretion. WP:BLPPRIVACY does not call for this result, particularly in the case of a public figure who allows himself to be freely photographed at his public appearances. The issue is not the adequacy of the available free photos as identifying images, but a different, discretionary, concern. However, the ban on replaceable nonfree images is not discretionary, not a matter of editorial decisionmaking, and is compelled by WMF policy, which cannot be overriden by local or even global consensus here. Because free images of the subject are available, and certainly could be created if they were not, a nonfree image of the article subject cannot be used, whether we choose as an editorial matter to display a free image or not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you which is why I posted this and re-added the SD template to the file as it had been improperly removed. I was only bringing up FFD because I remember this being discussed before but couldn't remember where when I posted the above. Related discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Astral Dreadnought

Just wanted to let you know that the Astral dreadnought article you have recently restored has been taken into a regular AfD, in case you want to give your opinion. Daranios (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Playboy Playmates by year

Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:Playboy Playmate template list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Playboy Playmates by year

Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Your signature 2

I believe your signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Misplaced Pages. I think your signature is political in nature. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're not willing to explain your position, there is nothing meaningful to respond to --especially since the policy you refer to does not mention signatures and userboxes that are "political in nature" are broadly accepted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I believe the "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!" part is political in nature and can easily cause unnessary strife in discussions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(Shhh... best not mention it then... and they won't notice...) Seriously, though, has it actually caused any such strife? I interact with people all the time who openly express their support for Donald Trump, and it's never caused me any strife. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: I hope you don't mind that I modified the subheading, as there's an identical one above and it confuses the software. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean it's in a signature so it's plastered everywhere. Isn't that like WP:SOAPBOX since Hullaballoo is spreading his viewpoint on every page where he leaves his signature. Are you saying I can include "down with Donald Trump" in my signature? WP:SOAPBOX specifically says

"Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."

This can be extended to signatures too, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally, if you want to know what I'm saying then all you need to do is read what I'm saying, and if it doesn't include what you're asking me if I'm saying then I'm not saying it. Specifically, if I'd meant to say you could include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature, I'd have said 'You can include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature'. Oppositional political statements tend to be less acceptable by the community than supportive ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:SOAPBOX mentions "user pages" too and also "talk page discussions." Therefore, I think the Hong Kong portion of the signature contravenes WP:SOAPBOX --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I see you removed the portion that mentions SOAPBOX doesn't include talk pages. It does. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realised my error immediately after my "PS" comment, so I quickly removed it - but not quickly enough to save my embarrassment, it seems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's the reason for the edit conflict. Hence my statement above may not make much sense since it is replying to your PS. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

TYW7 acknowledges that no disruption can be attributed to the portion of my signature they object to. They don't deny that content, like userboxes, which is "political in nature", is allowed. They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them. But it hasn't been. Exactly the same could be said of userboxes, and would require the deletion of scores if not hundreds of userboxes on thousands of userpages. This is just an IDONTLIKEIT complaint, and I see no reason for the discussion to continue and waste users' time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As User:Levivich mentions, this is a slippery slope. Though I object to the first part mentioning about administrators, there is no clear cut case in WP:SOAPBOX. However, the political part is a clear cut case. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. " --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the slippery slope, and I say that as someone who hates "slippery slope" arguments. If the community permits one editor to put "support HK" in their signature then the community can't really stop me from adding "support Brazil" or what have you, and if it catches on, our talk pages will become covered in political slogans. At that point we'll pass a rule prohibiting it.

Wait... isn't that what already happened? Levivich 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well SOAPBOX doesn't mention "signature" specifically. And I think that's the loophole Hullaballoo is trying to use. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if SOAPBOX mentions signatures or not because a signature is part of a talk page comment, and SOAPBOX mentions talk page comments, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Using that signature on an article talk page is a black-and-white violation of NOT policy. The only question is whether this violation is causing any meaningful disruption, and on that point I'm not convinced. Levivich 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My view is all political messages should not be included as it contravenes WP:SOAPBOX, no matter if it's disruptive or not. Also, tell that to Hullaballoo, who states They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them. So yes they are Wikilawyering about the wording of the policy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There are other things it doesn't mention, like userboxes. You describe exclusions you don't like as "loopholes", which iss just another way of putting your thumb on the scale. The current balance was struck after an extended and painful conflict centered on userboxes. I doubt any sensible user would see it reopened. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You are WP:LAWYERING. You fully know the spirit of WP:SOAPBOX is no "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." While WP:SOAPBOX does not specifically mention signatures, it does mention talk pages and user pages. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You are just ignoring reality. SOAPBOXES mentions userpages, but does not prohibit "commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" content in userboxes. The community drew the line quite some time ago, and that you don't like where the line was drawn doesn't justify this tendentious haranguing. Tgis discussion is over here. Stop your timewasting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's_signature --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Go find something more productive to do. I'm sure there is a category somewhere that needs sorting that could benefit from your attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My view is that if Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz post their signature to article talk pages or somewhere else where soapboxing is clearly unwelcome, you should feel free to remove their comment for soapboxing. You could just remove that part of their signature, but redacting part of someone's comment often causes more of a headache than just removing the whole thing. Don't blame me if you are blocked for trying though. The stupid thing is, if a bunch of editors are willing to get blocked over it, it may become enough of an issue that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be forced to change their signature. Yet somehow it makes sense to allow Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's clear disruption just because others care more about Misplaced Pages than they do and therefore aren't willing to cause this strife and therefore are not doing this. Nil Einne (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Moretto. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sandstein 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've read that comment. It appears correct in all respects. You appear to be under the misapprehension saying accurate things about an editor's editing practices that are not positive is a personal attack. It is not. Your time would be better spent encouraging the editors who raise shoddy AFD's to improve rather than making baseless threats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, did you even read what I posted? In that AFD, the nominator deliberately made false accusations against me, apparently in retaliation for solidly justified criticism of his poor AFD practices. See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Houston (actor) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards. No one denies this, not you, not the experienced-at-AFD nominator (who doubled down on their intentional falsehoods). My comments detailed exactly what was false. This is, quite precisely, commenting on content. I would also note that describing an editor's content as "lying" or as a "lie" is not considered, by policy or practice, as a personal attack; see, for example, the comment (#1 oppose) in this currently running RFA, where an experienced admin describes an editor's conduct as "lying to people". (To be sure, an editor who makes false claims of this nature in bad faith may be sanctioned for disruption, but that is not the issue here.) My edits have been repeatedly described as "dishonest", or as lies, or in similarly insulting terms, and my complaints were rejected out of hand (particularly with regard to the notorious, now-WMF-banned Scalhotrod and the paid porn industry promoter Rebecca1990. Your "warning" is contrary to policy and practice, and you should expeditiously, expressly, withdraw it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The AfD read: "A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Deprodded with no sources added nor any explanation." This AfD text is focused on the content of the article, and while it does criticize the deprodding, it does so without mentioning you. It is in no way an accusation or a personal attack against you. It was you who personalized the disagreement when you replied: "Nominator, don't lie", " Any reasonable editor would understand this", "your COI tag was ridiculous" and used generally confrontative, aggressive and personal language. This conduct violated our core conduct policy WP:NPA, which instructs users to "comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Please heed this warning or you may be sanctioned for further such conduct. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this conversation. Firstly, regarding the claim that my comments were in retaliation - I hadn’t even made the connection between the different AFDs, I was merely commenting on the article, not the editor. Secondly, regarding “shoddy” AFDs, according to WP:AFDSTATS nearly 80% of my nominations are agreed by the community. Thirdly, can I remind you that there is a real person responding to each of your comments? I don’t think you realise how hurtful some of your comments are. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Andrea Elson headshot

Concerning the Andrea Elson article, non-free headshot was added because no free alternative is currently available. When one is found, I would be happy to add it.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) (talk page watcher)@Wk3v78k23tnsa: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the file from the article since this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1; if you disagree with the tag, feel free to explain why on the file's talk page. Just for reference, the fact that a free equivalent doesn't currently exist is almost always never consider a sufficient justification for using a non-free one in this type of way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NFCC is quite clear on this point: a nonfree image may be used "only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. This is virtually always the case for living persons; the few exceptions recognized are cases like inmates serving life sentences, long-term fugitives, or the permanently institutionalized. Merely having dropped from the public eye in insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg

Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2020 April 16#File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg and kept as a result. Then, there was also this from just last month by another editor who, like yourself, does quite a bit of NFCC cleanup. If something has changed since that 2016 FFD that now makes the file replaceble non-free use, then perhaps a better thing to do would be to re-discuss this at FFD. Even with the new infobox image someone might still try and argue that the file should be kept, but only moved to the body of the article. Simply removing the file so that it ends up deleted per F5 will most likely only lead to someone just re-adding it. Normally, I would suggest tagging it with rfu, but the admin who reviews the tag would probably decline it and say the file should be brought to FFD instead based on the above. I know others sometimes give you a hard time regarding your efforts to try and clean up NFCC problems, but I think you do a good job and very rarely make a mistake when you remove a file. I just think this time it might be better to not ignore the previous FFD and instead try and seek clarification or a reversal of it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Apology

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize for leaving a dodgy comment a couple of years ago. I think at the time you weren't communicating. Stay safe. scope_creep 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Killjoy

No content

"no current source"

Can you wikilink me to the Misplaced Pages article that describes what constitutes the parameters of a "current source" before information should be removed? I see you using that rationale in a number of your recent edits and would like to know what it is based off of. Thanks, oncamera 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Someone reported you. See WP:ANI#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz making up sourcing rules to delete content they apparently disapprove. Not me. John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Asger Aaboe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Asger Aaboe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Hi HW. You can ignore this notification since I've tagged the photo that was uploaded to Commons as a copyvio and restored the non-free that had been replaced. However, you may want to try and dig a bit deeper here since the uploader of the Commons file (Anaaboe) might be one of Aaboe's daughters. photo shownto the one you uploaded. It's possible (though it seems a stretch) that this photo could be a case of c:Template:PD-heirs if it was a work for hire, but that seems like a bit of work to try and sort out. Since uploading and replacing the photo were the only edits made by this account, my guess is that someone related to Aaboe Googled him and found the article, didn't like the photo, and decided to change it without even considering anything related to copyright at all. A good-faith mistake, but still a mistake. Whether you want to upload this photo as a non-free replacement is entirely up to you, but I'm assuming you saw other photos of Aaboe (probably even the one uploaded to Commons) and chose the one you chose because its provenance was clearer as well as for some other reasons.FWIW, since the account has only made one edit so far, I didn't feel it was necessary to start advising them of WP:COI; if, however, they're going to start regularly editing the article, then I think adding {{Welcome-coi}} or {{uw-coi}} to their user talk will be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

""A. R. Long"" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "A. R. Long". The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"A. R. Long" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder

A reminder that accusing an editor of misogyny belongs in a conduct forum (such as ANI) rather than in a content forum such as AFD, as happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Delaney. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

People who can't tell the difference between discussion of structural/institutional bias and of the conduct of individual editors should give up any positions of authority they hold here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Because of your comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Aviam_Soifer, I searched here and there to see how true it was, and I'm highly disappointed with what I found. The fact that every athlete is considered notable (incorretly by WP:NOLYMPICS, if I may add) merely by participating in an olympics is really disturbing. Guess I should participate more in AfD of sportsmen than academics. Walwal20 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion template at Gabbie Carter

Greetings! First, while the situation at Gabbie Carter did warrant an extended note, it was not criterion G6. I briefly used the generic {{db}} template to store the note. That's probably the best way to put it on the face of the page; a talk page comment could also have been used.

That said, after re-reading the article, I agree that the BLP violations, while subtle in their placement, were profound in their effect. I have deleted it under criterion G10, because even if there was no malice in creating the article, the effects were too severe to allow it to stand. I used your wording in the expanded reason for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Pokemon in India delection request

Please help some one has put delection request for article Pokemon in India. So help me to because before also it was previously also it was nominated. But you canel this request. Thank you

Photo deletion at Barbara Niven

The photo in question was provided by photographer and copyright holder, Sue Melke, who is Barbara Niven’s partner in one business and her media branding consultant responsible for the content of her web page. If the photo is not properly identified, please let me know what needs done. Otherwise, the photo was provided to be placed on the Barbara Niven page and should be restored.

Thank you, Old Beeg ..warble·· 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Oldbeeg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the image because non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1 of Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy. The reason for this is that it's almost always considered reasonable for a freely-licensed equivalent that is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one to either be found or created by someone at some point. If, as you state, the copyright holder provided you with this image, then perhaps you can ask them to get them to email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS for the file to be uploaded under a free license that Misplaced Pages accepts. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:Licensing, but basically Misplaced Pages only will accept free licenses that essentially allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and re-use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-use); moreover, once the copyright holder agrees to such a thing, they can't "cancel" the license after the fact if they change their mind as explained here. So, even though there are Creative Commons licenses that can be used for "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use" only types of content, such licenses are not free enough for Misplaced Pages's purposes. If you want an idea as to how to ask the copyright holder for this permission, please see WP:PERMISSION and c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What Marchjuly said. The WMF has made a very strong commitment to free content, and some people and photographers aren't comfortable with fully relinquishing control over their copyrighted images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries. // Timothy :: talk 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Colin Keiver Misplaced Pages Page

I had mentioned in the descriptions of those uploads in the article Colin Keiver that I have permission from the publishers of those images. I am unsure as to why you had deleted them. Please, undo those edits or explain why. Johny3936 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention how you then proceed to change the image of him in the cockpit of the airplane to the main cover image. If anything, remove the others WITH REASON though leave that out of the picture that would represent him. Please do explain why you have decided to vandalize this Misplaced Pages page without reason. I’ll mention it again, both of those images had been approved for usage. Johny3936 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Before you embarrass yourself any further, you badly need to learn the basics of Misplaced Pages's nonfree use policy. The images I removed were nonfree, as you indicated in their image file pages. Absent certain rare exceptions, not at all relevant here, nonfree images of the article subject may not be displayed in biographies of living persons. While you may have permission from the original publisher to use those images, Misplaced Pages-only permission is not sufficient to allow use. Those images can only be used for your purposes if the copyright holder provides a full release allowing use by anyone, such as a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, allowing upload to Commons; and for previously published images, it is best to provide permission through the OTRS process. This is a clear-cut matter. Those images may not be used without an appropriate release, and are subject to automatic deletion in the near future.

You should also be aware that flinging around wholly unfounded accusations of vandalism is considered disruptive behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the above. Point 1 of WP:NFCC addresses this (emphasis mine). "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". The encyclopedic purpose here in showing what Mr Keiver looks like. While the current picture is not the best in terms of portraiture, it is however a free public domain equivalent. Even if there was no free picture, the second part of point 1 would come into play "or could be created". We would not use a non-free picture of a living person except under extreme circumstances (they are unable to be photographed and are conceivably never likely to be) which is a rare occurance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Johny3936. Just going to pipe in and say that both Hullaballoo Wolfwitz and Only in death are correct about how Misplaced Pages's non-free content use policy deals with non-free images of living persons. There are some exceptions to this listed in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but I can see how any of them would apply here. While it's great that images have been approved for use, that really doesn't mean much unless the copyright holders of the images are willing to give their WP:CONSENT for the images to be uploaded to Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license as explained in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. So, if you can contact the copyright holders of these images (be careful here since the copyright holder of a photo is almost always the person taking the photo and not the subjct of the photo) and get them to give their consent as explained in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, then I'm sure Hullaballo Wolfwitz will have no problem with the images being used in the article (at least from a copyright standpoint). Otherwise, without the copyright holders' consent being verified, there's really no way such images can be kept as they will need to be treated as non-free content. Of course, you might disagree with this, and you can ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC or even WP:FFD if you like, but again I think you're going to have real hard time establishing a consensus in favor of this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Misplaced Pages moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Misplaced Pages rules, is that how it is supposed to be done when you’re making such a large edit to the page? I am asking that you stop changing that picture to the profile picture. It is terrible. You can leave it as a photo in the body section of the page instead of putting a terrible photo that just looks worse than ever with the text below it at the top. Also, of course, just like anyone with their own profile page on this website, Hullaballoo, strikes with the confrontational behaviour and tells me I should learn Misplaced Pages’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Misplaced Pages constantly and I am unsure how you haven’t embarrassed you or your family yet at this point. I am removing that picture from the cover image. Do not change it. You are genuinely vandalizing my work when you do so. I will change that picture back to where it was before and it can be left here. I’ve read some of your other discussions on your page and you are definitely nothing more than confrontational with everyone on Misplaced Pages. Johny3936 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, changing the text under the image? Are you serious? There is a reason it is as detailed is it is! It’s like writing a math equation then cutting it short for space and removing half of the symbols. It doesn’t work that way. Please fix that yourself or leave this page alone. You are genuinely crossing the line from your overdramatic orders regarding the images to now changing things that don’t even need to be changed. Get a grip bud. Johny3936 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Petroni

Hi, I see you deleted the newspaper cover I added to Carlos Petroni. In San Francisco, those papers were rather iconic. My thought was that an image of a well known project by Petroni would improve the article, and add greater understanding to his work. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The general rule is that nonfree images of an article subject's work may not be displayed in their biography -- album covers for a musician, book covers for an author, movie posters for a director, magazine covers for an editor, etc. Note that right now there is no cover in the article for Harold Ross, one of the most famous/notable American magazine editors ever. (There will be one added later today, though, because as a 1925 publication it entered the public domain at the beginning of this year. There is a very narrow exception when the article includes sourced discussion of the cover image itself, but that doesn't apply here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten for all the great work you do Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!

Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

NFCC violations?

Hello, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted all of the images from Lee Weiner's page. Each image has a non-free use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Because non of the images had valid use rationales. In general, nonfree content policy treats all nonfree images of living persons as replaceable by free images, with very narrow exceptions (prisoners, fugitives, etc, and people whose notability rests on their particularly distinctive past physical appearance) which don't apply here. Absent specific, sourced content regarding the cover image itself, nonfree book covers are generally allowed only in the article whose principal subject is the book itself. NFCC policy is much more restrictive than standard "fair use". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - starting with the first image that was in the infobox, I think there is notability based on the particularly distinctive past physical appearance, which could be made more clear in the use rationale, e.g. Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs writes about the recent movie The Trial of the Chicago 7, "(defendant Lee Weiner was extremely hairy and hippie-ish but is presented in the film as clean-cut and nerdy),"1 and John Kifner of the New York Times reported on the haircuts that most of the Chicago 7 defendants received in jail, as well as what happened afterward 2. As a general matter, the 'counterculture' appearance of several of the Chicago 7 defendants has been noted by many sources; clarifying Lee Weiner's actual appearance during the trial as compared to the depiction in the recent movie had also seemed noteworthy. It is also a historic photograph that can't be replaced because it was taken in 1970. I am less familiar with these policies and would appreciate your assistance with bringing this image into compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

On your first question, Weiner's appearance isn't a basis for his notability, and the inaccuracy is the film can be conveyed by text alone. With regard to the other images, I frankly don't see any way for any of the other images to be used in the article unless the copyright holders issue full releases via WP:OTRS -- although if you can show that the poster was originally published without a copyright notice, it could be used as a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on a visual inspection, the poster does not appear to have a copyright notice and was created ca. 1970, so I would appreciate it if you would restore that image. As to the image in the infobox, one of the reasons I am asking for the restoration of that image is the contextual significance, per WP:NFCI, of the history of the trial. Nathan Robinson did not find text sufficient to convey the difference between Weiner's appearance during the trial and the recent film, and included a hyperlink to the image, which seems to help emphasize how the image aids the reader's understanding and its omission would be detrimental. Per WP:NFCCP, I have not found any free equivalent despite extensive searching, and explained how the significantly cropped and low-resolution image was intended to respect the commercial opportunities of the original copyrighted material, engaged in minimal use, found the work published outside of Misplaced Pages, attempted to explain the contextual significance, and described the image with available information, including the artist and publisher. As I review the policies, I haven't found a discussion of a specific policy related to living persons, which makes it more challenging for me to respond to your concerns. I do take this issue very seriously and I appreciate any help you can provide with developing a valid rationale for the inclusion of the infobox image. Thank you Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As an example of how the appearance of the defandants, including Lee Weiner, was notable, there are these excerpts from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision on the appeal of the criminal convictions: "Perhaps secondary, but significant, were the conflicts of values represented by the so-called youth culture — hippies, yippies and freaks—in contrast with the more traditional values of the vast majority of the community, presumably including most citizens summoned for jury service. Again, we are not unaware that many otherwise qualified members of the community could not be impartial toward, and in fact are often offended by, persons who wear long hair, beards, and bizarre clothing and who seem to avoid the burdens and responsibilities of regular employment. Several defendants would exemplify this conflict." "The district judge properly instructed the jurors that they “must not in any way be influenced by any possible antagonism you may have toward the defendants or any of them, their dress, hair styles, speech, reputation, courtroom demeanor or quality, personal philosophy or lifestyle.” The United States Attorney should not have urged the jury to consider those things." (Ragsdale, Bruce. (2008) The Chicago Seven: 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts, at 62-65.) Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is that such statements can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and do not require illustration. Such concepts as "long hair" and "beards" are commonly understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - I don't agree with the short answer, and I have tried to develop a longer explanation on the file's Talk page, and in the updated rationale. At this point, I have responded to three files, on their Talk pages and with updated rationales, because I don't think I clearly explained the purpose in accordance with the policies when I uploaded them - as I continue to review the policies, it appears that with regard to the memoir book cover and the recent picture of Lee Weiner, I misunderstood how the policies apply when I uploaded them, so I have not yet taken any action on those files. Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As a follow up, I am also wondering why WP:NFCCE did not apply before you deleted the images from the article, specifically, "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." By deleting the images from the article without notifying me (the uploading editor) and allowing an opportunity to provide a non-free-use defense on the file page, the files are now set to be deleted as orphans per criterion 7. In the meantime, the WP:NFCCE process appears to have been applied by an admin to the images, and I am responding on the file pages to the extent that it seems possible to better explain a non-free-use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

NFCCE is not an instantaneous process; it depends on a small number of volunteers. Images are allowed to remain in articles unless challenged; the fact that an image is not immediately removed shows exactly nothing. You have been notified, by an automatic process, of pending deletion once the nonfree image has been verified by Misplaced Pages software as orphaned. I seriously recommend that you review policy pages regarding use and maintenance of nonfree content, because your arguments mostly try to relitigate long-settled issues. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it would be helpful to our discussion if you would cite sources in your replies to me, because there are a lot of policy pages and a long history of issues on Misplaced Pages that I am not as familiar with as a fairly new editor. For us to communicate as peers and on a more equal footing, pointing me towards references would help me constructively respond to your points. I asked for clarification about the NFCCE process because it has been confusing to me to first have the files deleted from the article by you, then to receive notification for most of them through an automated NFCCE process initiated by an admin, and then to receive notification through the automated orphan process. I have previously reviewed and continue to review the policy pages, which is how I found the NFCCE enforcement process, and I wanted to alert you that I am participating in it, but I was also curious if I had missed something in terms of a policy or guideline related to why you had not used the NFCCE process. I'm not trying to litigate, I am trying to understand, which is why I have asked for your help. Unfortunately, it isn't helpful to generally tell me to review policy pages and to generally refer to long-settled issues, but if there are specifics that you think are relevant to the files that I will be trying to better explain a rationale for through the NFCCE process, I think it would be best if further discussion of the files happens on those pages. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Viper (rapper) image.

Hi, I noticed you took the profile image of Viper off his page. This has happened twice now with different people. I can confirm I have full permission to put his profile picture on the page as per https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/695843896361484378/763746370125037568/Screenshot_20201008-075344.png.

I admit this proof is a little dodgy - I have no idea if he actually sent the email or not. If you require more proof to his consent for the picture to be used on the page then I'll try and get a full statement out of him. If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that I have done please tell me. Thank you - Kettleonwater (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages-specific permission to use an image is insufficient. Only a full release, allowing anyone to use the image for any purpose, would allow use. Without a full release, the image is barred as a nonfree image of a living person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Had a chat with Whpq about this (on my talk page). Currently making Viper himself fill out a Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries form. I'm going to revert the page to show the image for now, but if he fails to send the form in time and WP:NFCC#1 fails, then feel free to revert the edit. Kettleonwater (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's clearly contrary to our free content policies. The image must be removed unless/until sufficient per,ission is received. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Lee Wagstaff

Hi. I'd like to get some clarity on why you reverted the tag I placed on the page Lee Wagstaff. You used the phrase "facially invalid" which I do not understand. From my perspective, the subject of this article has no business being in an encyclopedia of knowledge. The subject is not notable in any discernable way. No relevant citations on the page are valid and no other verifiable citations could be found. ThePhantom65 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, for clarity you should begin by reading WP:BLPPROD, which states that the tag should only be placed on an article which "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". The article included no fewer than five pertinent external links. QED. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Road of Memory G12

Just an FYI, I only put the tag on there because a previous reviewer did and it was improperly removed by a different editor, not allowing for a proper decision. Etzedek24 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for violating your civility restriction per discussion at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Wug·a·po·des 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the relationship status for both individuals on their pages.

For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 you stated →‎Personal life: no current source

For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 you stated →‎Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated

I did not know just because you saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, you had the ability to remove their relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up?

On Google news, the first page brings three recent articles that clearly state they are still in a relationship:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/exclusive-interview-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-candid-confessions-on-rubina-bajwas-birthday/photostory/81185284.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/happy-birthday-rubina-bajwa-beau-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-the-cutest-video/articleshow/81186925.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/7days7lovestories-rubina-bajwa-and-gurbaksh-chahal-prove-opposites-attract/articleshow/80752363.cms

If you go to their verified instagram accounts, they are very much still a couple:

https://www.instagram.com/gchahal/

https://www.instagram.com/rubina.bajwa/

You had no right to remove content from this page as this clearly violates[REDACTED] guidelines. Please revert your edits and place this content back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Archival

I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. --🐔 Chicdat 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

HW is currently blocked. Maybe it would be best to leave his user talk page as is and leave it up to him to archive if he decides to return to editing after his block expires. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That's fine. I'll wait until August 22. 🐔 Chicdat 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, maybe it would be best to leave it up to HW to decide (1) if he wants to archive his user talk page and (2) how to best do that very thing if he decides that's want he wants to do. Unless you're willing to start a discussion about this at ANI, it seems like nothing good will come of you or anyone else trying to forcibly archive his user talk page. If you've got concerns about its length, then perhaps try discussing them with him once his account has been unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but 800KB is impossible for almost all devices to handle. I have seen larger talk pages than this (User talk:Nightstallion is 880KB), but this is the largest regularly viewed talk page (with the occasional exception of User talk:EEng). Perhaps I could start a thread at WP:VPP about forcible archiving of talk pages. 🐔 Chicdat 10:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Ignore this. Fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi HW. Welcome back. Now that your back, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:Cindy Wilson.jpg. Do you think this could possibly be {{PD-US-no notice}} since it's non-free justification seem a bit iffy and it's unlikely that the original source is someone's Pinterest account? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Wolfie is back, Hooray!

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No current summary

That is not a reason to remove well-sourced content. And, your previous summary was that was unsourced gossip. There are now two good sources, and there is no reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Spare me your hypocrisy, @Walter Görlitz. You know perfectly well that you need a current source to claim that a celebrity "relationship" exists "currently", and an outdated source announcing that they have begun dating fails abjectly. And an editor who commits an edit like this has no business complaing that someone else has removed "well-sourced" content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that sourced content is all that is required and not a current source. Comparing WP:NOTNEWS to WP:RS is not even reasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Period. And your citation of NOTNEWS to trivialize a woman's announcement of her pregnancy as equivalent to scoring a goal in a soccer match is an example of the structural misogyny so common here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If you say so, but I'm willing to take both issues to a larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to embarrass yourself publicly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Lee Sun-bin

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Not sure how you defined it as gossip when content is supported by sources are reliable source as per WP:KO/RS#R. In addition, I read this discussion in which I believe you are the same guy involved there as well, which stated that it can be included if they are reliable source which they are indeed reliable source and confirmed by both their agencies. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You're badly misinterpreting the discussion you cite. That discussion makes the point that while currently reported relationships may be mentioned in an article if well-sourced, relationships which are not currently reported should not be absent some evidence of significance to the subject's life. The relationship here was only reported about three years ago, is is not well-sourced, but based on public relations copy from a subjects PR agency. So it should not be included without much more recent or more substantive sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I didn't badly misinterpreted it, but since you are adamant that the sources are not reliable source and insisting notable news source as a just copy from PR relations (which the agency didn't release any press release in their official website nor in either social media accounts) nor welcoming additional recent sources which I assumed that you will still treat it as just another gossip news. There isn't any point to discuss further as our views differ and that's completely fine.

Btw, you may want to clear up your talk page by archiving the old discussion or add Lowercase sigmabot III to help you do the job, as the huge amount of discussion is causing lagginess, slow loading when visting your talk page and also when replying. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your signature (2)

I couldn't help but notice your signature when I first saw it. I'm sorry to say, it stands out, and quite for the wrong reasons. It's blatantly uncivil and polemical. I see you're rather fresh off of a 6 months block for exactly this kind of issue, but if you're not ready to fix this issue, it might have to be re-examined. @Wugapodes: FYI (as closer of that discussion), and for your independent judgement on this editor's signature too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As you undoubtedly know well, the issue has been repeatedly discussed, and, as once such discussion was formally closed, "Consensus here and below seems to be that Hullaballoo's sig is fine and that it isn't causing anyone any harm. Another time, the close was "If you're offended by his signature, you're allowed to personally ask him to change it. He's also allowed to refuse to do so. No sanctions will come from this". In yet another discussion, an editor declared "When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel more welcomed and less alone". As one admin commented to an editor disputing such a close, "Go do something useful to improve the encyclopedia instead of pursuing this quixotic quest of yours".The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

For those of us who know the reasons behind said sig, its not uncivil, its an accurate statement of fact, albeit an unpleasant one. Which is largely why previous discussions of said sig dont end up with the resolution the people who take offense at it want. I would suggest you go take a long look at the AN/ANI archives, and when you have informed yourself sufficiently, ask yourself if this is a valuable use of your time. (For a starting point, see here and here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
So two wrongs make a right? Since when? As for ANI being unable to resolve this; clearly this user has long-term civility issues, and one thing ANI is usually not too useful for (due to many reasons) is civility issues - unless they're really obvious - so that's what it's worth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Generally, the community has not come to a consensus that HW's signature is inappropriate. The previous block wasn't "for exactly this kind of issue". The previous block was for a specific incident and editing restriction; the discussion touched on the signature only tangentially. For this reason I noted in the close that there is no consensus to require a signature change. As HW points out above, the community generally tolerates the signature as it is, and personally I'm content to ignore it if the signature is the only concern. Unless there is a clear consensus to require a change, I'm not going to use admin tools just to fight over a signature. — Wug·a·po·des 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.
Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.
Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After a community review of this block there is no consensus to reverse or alter it. HighInBC 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment to reviewing admin. Not that my opinion matters much, but as a participant in the AFD I was a bit surprised that the comments made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette were taken as a serious personal attack infraction; as the nominator at this particular AFD (Boleyn) has been nominating large amounts of articles for deletion very rapidly recently in succession. These nominations have been so close together that a competent BEFORE search could not have been done in between nominations. I do believe the concerns raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were justified under the circumstances. That said, Hullaballoo could have been kinder and calmer in the way those issues were presented. I am not familiar with the history behind this case, but I would argue that it's not clear that a blockable infraction was made in this instance. (at least not one deserving of such a long ban) 4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I very seldom ever express views on unblock requests, however, despite having some vague understanding of the civility issues that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a party to over time, I do take some sympathy on this occasion. If you take any pre-existing bias out and consider if another editor had made the same or similar comments, I would not think an instant block would be the result, or indeed any kind of block. I appreciate when there is a history of incivility then there is considerably less assumption of good faith, however in this instance I don't think HW's comments were excessively incivil. Borderline, yes, brusque, very much so and the general tone was eyebrow-raising. Looking at the underlying view expressed, the statements made by HW are not too unreasonable. The worst personal statement I see is to "trout the nominator harshly" - if this is the worst of HW's statement, then maybe it's a sign of progress. Bungle 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocking admin comment: On 22 February 2021, Wugapodes blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that a civility restriction was and is in fact in force, as described in the ANI closure.
About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Misplaced Pages yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" (), and of "sloth" (). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.
In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct. Sandstein 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In context, the "institutional misogyny" highlighted seems more in reference to the nomination than a direct personal attack, although still inappropriate. I am not an advocate of HW in the slightest, particularly as there certainly remains issues with general civility and the apparent inability to make a statement without drawing some personal critique. Maybe HW should reflect on the general tone of the statement and consider how it could have been alternately expressed without the phrases of concern that Sandstein took issue with. Bungle 20:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I'd like to respectfully disagree with this block. I have two main concerns. First, I'm not convinced that the comments were particularly vexatious. I find this essay helpful for weighing civility blocks, and I'm not sure the conduct at issue falls below the standard laid out there. Second, I'm worried about the timeliness of the block. The comment was made two weeks ago, and in that time the comment didn't seem to cause any stir. Unless there's some incident since then which I'm unaware of, I don't really see what is being prevented. Given the minimal disruption it caused, a block seems more like an escalation than a resolution. Given my close and previous block, I obviously agree with you about the interpretation of the logged restriction, but I would like to think that raising your concerns on this talk page before blocking would have led to a better outcome. I'd like to ask you to reconsider and hopefully come to the conclusion to unblock, but I'll leave it to another admin to evaluate if you still object as I'm not a fan of unilaterally overturning civility blocks. — Wug·a·po·des 00:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks for your feedback, but I see things differently. In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Misplaced Pages. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Misplaced Pages process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct. In this particular case, what the block prevents is similar misconduct by this user for six months. As their reaction here shows, they do not recognize the problem with their conduct. This indicates that "raising my concerns on this talk page", as you suggest, would not have changed the user's conduct. I remain of the view that the block is an appropriate preventative measure. Sandstein 06:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Somebody surely needs to be trouted here but I won’t suggest whom lest it be interpreted as a personal attack...—Aquegg (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel obliged to comment here, primarily because my !vote at the AFD in question was "per related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and I specifically endorsed trouting the nominator. Those of us who spend a lot of time at AFD have been constantly frustrated by the "efforts" of one particular editor who is blindly nominating articles for deletion in rapid succession simply because they have been tagged as being of questionable notability for years. It's clear that the majority of these nominations have been done without any reference to WP:BEFORE and not once have I seen the nominator defend their nominations or offer some additional commentary as to why the nomination was made. Many of them have been speedily kept or WP:SNOW closed. Its also clear that there is no appetite among the admin corps for dealing with this particular editor and these particular nominations. Okay, fine, but the result is increasingly frustrated AFD participants. We're here because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless of course your contribution is the target of a lazy, drive-by (against-policy) deletion nomination and there isn't someone like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz around to push back against that sort of nonsense. Sorry, but this is a bad block. St★lwart 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the block was implemented 2 weeks after the comment was made, without prompting from the editor against whom the comment was made, in a discussion where other editors actually endorsed the comment in question (including, in part, an admin), makes it all the stranger. St★lwart 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking at this and thinking about my opinion on it in general, but if the block is based on conduct on AfD's could it not have been limited to the Misplaced Pages namespace? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
331dot, in my view not. Incivility is an issue of personal character and temperament that is not limited to any particular namespace. There's no reason to believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be more civil in, say, article talk page discussions than in AfDs, especially because in their unblock request above they do not even recognize that their conduct is problematic at all. What's more, the previous six-month block also extended to all namespaces; it would not be in keeping with our practice of escalating blocks to limit the scope of a block for recidivism. Sandstein 10:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I've seen about this matter, I think I am in agreement with Bungle and Wugapodes above. Maybe it's a judgement call, but I don't think that the comments crossed the line. Like Wugapodes, I'm not going to unilaterally lift this block. There also seems to be concerns with whether a formal sanction exists at all. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sandstein: from the above comments it is clear that this action lacks consensus. Anyone can of course try to gain consensus for such a block or other sanction at the appropriate forum but I suggest that the block should be removed until such time as that might occur.—Aquegg (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Entirely up to you, HW. But, would you consider shortening your signed name, per WP:SEAOFBLUE & maybe get an Archive Bot for your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
"There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination" is a personal attack warranting a long block? Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

I have started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. It can be found here. Hopefully someone will copy over anything you wish to post. If I see it, I will do so. — Ched (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is to note that the ANI discussion was closed by HighInBC as follows: "While controversial this block falls well within the discretion of an administrative action and is based on prior behavior and sanctions. In addition while there is significant opposition to the block there is a majority that supports the block. This discussion has been going on for more than 48 hours and as time passes is moving more towards supporting the block. There is not a consensus that the block was incorrect and it is not likely that one will form. As far as the community discussion goes the block stands. The remaining unblock avenues remain open." Sandstein 09:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein for posting this here, and apologies to Hullaballoo for forgetting to inform you of the result myself. HighInBC 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DEStevenson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DEStevenson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Greetings

Gpkp has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.

Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings! Hope u r seeing this message...
have a nice day!
Many thanks for your valuable suggestions on image files...

--Gpkp 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hannesbok.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hannesbok.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ―Susmuffin 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Angela Raymond for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angela Raymond is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angela Raymond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg

⚠

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg

⚠

Proposed deletion of Mission: Interplanetary

The article Mission: Interplanetary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Most of the current sources are primary or not independent. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)